The problem with skeptic blog sites (WUWT, Heritage Foundation etc.)

[skierinvermont]

I believe it is highly unfortunate that a growing proportion of people receive their primary scientific education not from textbooks, not from the peer-reviewed literature, not from newspapers or websites that report on the peer-reviewed literature directly, but from blog sites which often are oblivious to the peer-reviewed literature or directly contradict it with fallacious arguments. The authors of these sites often have little or no expertise in the field and personal biases that go unchecked by the lack of any review process. Personally, when I was going through a little bit more a "skeptic" phase I was often tripped up by these websites. In realizing how wrong some of these arguments (and I) were I have become very convinced of the importance of a strong review process and the consensus of many different scientists. I have experienced somewhat of a personal "backlash" if you will against some of these sites. Overall my position hasn't changed that much and I still lean towards the low edge of the climate consensus, because that is what I think the temperature record gives the most evidence for, so you might call me a "lukewarmer."

The following is a classic example of a bad argument from a skeptic website. I have found many of these errors over the years and I will try to document some of them here. BethesdaWx has posted a chart of global cloud cover from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project multiple times on this forum claiming that the decrease in global cloud cover (along with a few other natural factors) has caused the warming of the last 30 years. The chart came from a skeptic website known as www.climate4you.com. We find a similar argument being made there as well:

Within the still short period of satellite cloud cover observations, the total global cloud cover reached a maximum of about 69 percent in 1987 and a minimum of about 64 percent in 2000 (see diagram above), a decrease of about 5 percent. This decrease roughly corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.9 W/m² within a period of only 13 years, which may be compared with the total net change from 1750 to 2006 of 1.6 W/m² of all climatic drivers as estimated in the IPCC 2007 report, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels. These

observations leave little doubt that cloud cover variations may have a profound effect on global climate and meteorology on almost any time scale considered.

The author then goes on to claim based on ISCCP data:

During the period of observations, the amount of low clouds (net cooling effect on global temperature) has been decreasing from about 29 percent in 1986 to about 25 percent in 2007.

The obvious implication is that a decrease in global cloud cover was responsible for much if not all of the warming since 1987. What the author fails to mention is that ISCCP cloud data was never intended for monitoring of long term trends and that the above trend is likely entirely spurious. You can find this out through a thorough examination of the peer reviewed literature, as I did (Link). Or, in order to satisfy BethesdaWx who insisted upon the accuracy of the ISCCP data, you can find it out as I did through an email to the head of the ISCCP, Dr. Rossow, who explained things in much simpler terms:

Andrew, As I published long before this paper came out, one should not

(yet) use ISCCP for long-term monitoring... the project was not

designed for this purpose at all.

Any use of the ISCCP data for long-term trends and any claims based on those trends is therefore entirely erroneous.

Here is another skeptic blog using ISCCP data to analyse long term trends in cloud cover:

http://www.worldclim...ing-and-nature/

Please post other blatant errors from Skeptic blogs .. I'll post the ones I find as I come across them.

[BethesdaWX]

Hilarious, uber denial from you, your argument has diverged from its original basis.....which is no surprise.

I'll be posting errors from WARMIST sites, 1 everyday......

This will be very fun........for me.

[skierinvermont]

Hilarious, uber denial from you, your argument has diverged from its original basis.....which is no surprise.

I'll be posting errors from WARMIST sites, 1 everyday......

This will be very fun........for me.

Please create your own thread for this activity. As you can see from the thread title, this thread is specifically for documenting and discussing the numerous errors and fallacious arguments on skeptic websites.

[BethesdaWX]

Please create your own thread for this activity. As you can see from the thread title, this thread is specifically for documenting and discussing the numerous errors and fallacious arguments on skeptic websites.

combining it into "problems with cimate change blogs" would be better off.

[beneficii]

Hilarious, uber denial from you, your argument has diverged from its original basis.....which is no surprise.

Maybe, maybe not. All I know is this, When I argue I do not want to waste my time arguing against a strawman. Mull this for a bit.

[beneficii]

combining it into "problems with cimate change blogs" would be better off.

Make the thread yourself. See what happens.

[skierinvermont]

I stumbled across another trick/error on WUWT today. What's even more compelling and disturbing about the errors and tricks in this WUWT post is that I had read and even referenced this post many times before and had not realized the errors and tricks that were being played. I imagine some of you have also read and been fooled by this WUWT post by Steve Goddard:

http://wattsupwithth...emp-vs-hadcrut/

The post is attempting to refute the fact that GISS has run warmer than HadCRUT recently due to the fact that GISS extrapolates across the arctic.

It begins the post with the following quote from GISS:

“A likely explanation for discrepancy in identification of the warmest year is the fact that the HadCRUT analysis excludes much of the Arctic ….. (whereas GISS) estimates temperature anomalies throughout most of the Arctic.”

Goddard claims he will show that there are "a number of things wrong with that claim."

I will demonstrate that he does not do so, and that his analysis contains blatant errors and deceptive tricks.

The first thing to note is that GISS says that they are "estimating temperature anomalies throughout most of the arctic." It never claimed to have actual observations throughout the arctic. GISS is simply giving the very simple and very obvious factually correct claim that the difference between HadCRUT and GISS over the last 10 years has been GISS estimates the arctic and HadCRUT does not. So even if the extrapolations are wrong, GISS's statement regarding the difference between HadCRUT and GISS would be correct.

He then shows the a map of GISS and and a map of HadCRUT in 2005. Both maps use a 1961-1990 baseline. GISS has an anomaly of .56C and HadCRUT has an anomaly of .48C. The difference is largely due to GISS extrapolating into the arctic. So far so good.

But then he goes on to post the following map of GISS which he refers to as "unsmoothed." Really what it is is 250km smoothing, as opposed to the usual 1200km smoothing.

Then, by comparison with the HadCRUT map, he creates the following map claiming that areas in green are areas where HadCRUT has better coverage.

However, what he neglects to mention is that HadCRUT does not also use 250km smoothing. In other words, when he compared the GISS 250km smoothing to the HadCRUT map, and created the map of areas in green with supposedly better coverage by HadCRUT, he was not comparing apples to apples. HadCRUT uses a 5 degree X 5 degree gridbox method of smoothing. 1 degree of latitude is over 550km, and at the equator 1 degree of longitude is also over 550km but is less at higher latitudes, which is over twice the distance of extrapolation used on the GISS map. Not only this, but HadCRUT will infill any 5 degree X 5 degree box which has 4+/8 of the surrounding boxes containing data. This means that HadCRUT will often extrapolate as far as 1000km. So when Goddard compares this GISS 250km smoothing map with the HadCRUT map and concludes that HadCRUT has much more data, it is not an apples to apples comparison.

Now, I think it may be true that HadCRUT does have slightly more raw data than GISS, the above map exaggerates it greatly because it is a comparison between GISS 250km smoothing and HadCRUT 5X5 degree gridbox smoothing + infilling of nearby boxes. No doubt this accounts for much of the appearance of more data in Africa and other places.

HadCRUT smoothing methodology may be found here: http://www.cru.uea.a...emperature/#faq

The second mistake, arguably more egregious is the first is the following extremely misleading map:

It's a blink map based on GISS and HadCRUT 2005 data (using GISS 250km smoothing and normal HadCRUT smoothing as explained above).

He concludes based on this animation that GISS missed large areas of cold including across the southern oceans. He also repeats his claim of vastly less data in GISS, despite the fact that the two smoothing methods are quite different and the HadCRUT map is extrapolating much farther.

Not only is he repeating the same apples to orange comparison, but he is making another apples to orange comparison. What he completely neglects to tell the reader is that unlike in his first set of images where both GISS and HadCRUT use a 1961-1990 baseline, he is now using a 1951-1980 baseline for GISS and a 1961-1990 baseline for HadCRUT. Of course, this makes GISS appear warmer even though it is not. When you use a 1961-1990 baseline you get the following image:

As you can see, GISS is now substantially cooler over the southern ocean and across the rest of the earth. It now agrees almost exactly with HadCRUT, showing a .49C anomaly vs a .48C anomaly for HadCRUT. This supports my claim that I have made elsewhere that GISS and HadCRUT are in complete agreement over the areas they both cover. The differences occur in the areas that GISS extrapolates to and HadCRUT does not, primarily the arctic. Which is exactly what GISS claimed as well in the original quote from them at the start of this post.

Thus the majority of Goddard's argument rests upon

1) an apples to oranges comparison between GISS 250km smoothing vs HadCRUT 5X5 degree gridbox + surrounding boxes smoothing to conclude that HadCRUT has far more observations, even though the extrapolation on HadCRUT is much farther

2) an apples to oranges comparison between GISS 1951-1980 baseline to HadCRUT 1961-1990 baseline to conclude that GISS is too warm even over the areas they both cover, such as the southern ocean. When using the same baseline, we find that HadCRUT has the exact same anomaly as GISS 250km smoothing.

We can therefore conclude that the larger anomalies in recent years on GISS are indeed due to the longer extrapolation, primarily over the arctic. And we know from other data sources that the Arctic has indeed warmed rapidly, in relative agreement with GISS. It's also important to note that GISS did not claim that their extrapolations are always 100% accurate.. the statement from GISS is simply making the very basic observations that the divergence between HadCRUT and GISS in recent years is due to GISS's extrapolations across the arctic. In other words, GISS is simply noting the reason for the difference. We can then examine how accurate these extrapolations across the arctic have been, and overall GISS's warming trend across the arctic is in relative agreement with other sources.

What's even more egregious is that Goddard no doubt is familiar enough with the two data sources to know that they use different baselines and neglects to mention this fact, and proceeds to perform a visual "analysis" of the two images despite their different baselines. He even photo shopped out the computed anomalies that would have automatically appeared on the images he generated at the GISS website because an intelligent reader would have figured out that a baseline change had occurred by comparing the computed anomalies in the first set of images to the second set of images.

[BethesdaWX]

GISS is the warmest even with the same baselines used, especially in the Arctic and Southern Ocean. This is because it has less data than any other source.

[skierinvermont]

GISS is the warmest even with the same baselines used, especially in the Arctic and Southern Ocean. This is because it has less data than any other source.

Yes.. the difference shrinks from .08C when different baselines are used to .01C when the same baseline is used. WUWT author Steven Goddard conveniently forgot to mention that they use different baselines and even performs a visual "analysis" of the two images even though they use different baselines. It's intentional and blatant deception.. pretty par for the course at WUWT.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes.. the difference shrinks from .08C when different baselines are used to .01C when the same baseline is used. WUWT author Steven Goddard conveniently forgot to mention that they use different baselines and even performs a visual "analysis" of the two images even though they use different baselines. It's intentional and blatant deception.. pretty par for the course at WUWT.

Its because GISS uses an earlier baseline to be deceptive itself! What goes around comes around...

[WeatherRusty]

Thanks skier for all you do. I am especially impressed with your diligence and commitment to learning and understanding the science. Good also that you are noticing the games that people play behind the scene to poison the well of knowledge. You are doing a great job! Keep it up.

As for me, well I'm feeling very discouraged lately. Politics and science don't mix well. Science is a tool designed for the betterment of mankind. It appears that in the case of climate science politics in at least the short run is winning the day. Facts and reason are no match against ideological bias. The right side of the collective human brain dominates the left. We are basically irrational creatures which happen to have the ability to think rationally if we wish to. The ability must be developed and exercised against the temptation to revert to our natural, irrational selves. This boils down to the age old fight between logical thought and religion. Religion, superstition and irresistible ideological dogma are tough nuts to crack. I'm starting to think we are not capable of saving ourselves from ourselves.

[skierinvermont]

Thanks skier for all you do. I am especially impressed with your diligence and commitment to learning and understanding the science. Good also that you are noticing the games that people play behind the scene to poison the well of knowledge. You are doing a great job! Keep it up.

Thanks!

The right side of the collective human brain dominates the left. We are basically irrational creatures which happen to have the ability to think rationally if we wish to. The ability must be developed and exercised against the temptation to revert to our natural, irrational selves.

I think this a very good description of us. Well put.

[BethesdaWX]

I'm starting to think we are not capable of saving ourselves from ourselves.

We need to be smart and objective to do that.....we are not.

[skierinvermont]

Its because GISS uses an earlier baseline to be deceptive itself! What goes around comes around...

Except GISS states its baseline on the top of every map generated from the site, while Goddard photo shopped it out intentionally. GISS doesn't use the old baseline to trick people, they use it because that is what they have always used since the index was developed in the 1980s.

[BethesdaWX]

Except GISS states its baseline on the top of every map generated from the site, while Goddard photo shopped it out intentionally. GISS doesn't use the old baseline to trick people, they use it because that is what they have always used since the index was developed in the 1980s.

Bingo. WUWT posting has the baseline mentioned, the maps with the baseline on them should be referred to the same way.

Paranoid to think WUWT is being deceptive when the baseline is there.....

[skierinvermont]

Bingo. WUWT posting has the baseline mentioned, the maps with the baseline on them should be referred to the same way.

Paranoid to think WUWT is being deceptive when the baseline is there.....

The baseline is not there in the WUWT post. It has been photo-shopped out.

Here is the image one more time. Feel free to circle the baseline. It would normally appear on such an image generated from the GISS website, but it has been photo-shopped out. Nor does the fact that the two images use different baselines appear in the text.

[nzucker]

My question regarding the GISS 2005 vs Hadley 2005 maps is this: why does GISS appear to overgeneralize warmth in the Arctic whereas Had CRUT shows some pockets of colder temperatures? For example, the Hadley analysis shows that the areas north of Alaska near the Beaufort Sea had temperatures just slightly above normal in 2005, yet GISS shows this area in the red, very much above normal. Is it true that GISS just doesn't have the station coverage of Hadley to pick up on these subtleties? Also, Hadley has a large area of below normal anomalies north of Scandinavia towards the Barents Sea, yet GISS has totally ignored this, and it looks to be another questionable extrapolation. How many stations does GISS have in the Arctic compared to Hadley, and where are the missing areas that large extrapolations occur in?

[skierinvermont]

My question regarding the GISS 2005 vs Hadley 2005 maps is this: why does GISS appear to overgeneralize warmth in the Arctic whereas Had CRUT shows some pockets of colder temperatures? For example, the Hadley analysis shows that the areas north of Alaska near the Beaufort Sea had temperatures just slightly above normal in 2005, yet GISS shows this area in the red, very much above normal. Is it true that GISS just doesn't have the station coverage of Hadley to pick up on these subtleties? Also, Hadley has a large area of below normal anomalies north of Scandinavia towards the Barents Sea, yet GISS has totally ignored this, and it looks to be another questionable extrapolation. How many stations does GISS have in the Arctic compared to Hadley, and where are the missing areas that large extrapolations occur in?

Most of what you are referring to is SST data.. Had doesn't have stations north of Svalbard or in the Beaufort Sea. HadCRUT and GISS use different SST products, and it looks as if the product HadCRUT uses will formulate anomalies in the arctic even where there is ice much of the year. Not quite sure how they do that but I will look into it.

You can also sea HadCRUT is covering much more of the southern ocean for the same reason (compared to the GISS 250km smoothing).

We also know that GISS's extrapolations across the arctic were largely correct that year, as 2005 was the warmest year on record in the arctic, and HadCRUT is biased too low for leaving it out. We can see that the weather pattern in 2005 produce record warm surface temperatures across the arctic, according to NCEP. We can also see GISS missed a bubble of extreme warmth across Antarctica. Not that this biases GISS low - just another example of how the extrapolations balance out in the end.

Oh and look GISS is too cold off the coast of Peru! Clearly it is biased!!@!!!@!

[Clifford]

I believe it is highly unfortunate that a growing proportion of people receive their primary scientific education not from textbooks, not from the peer-reviewed literature, not from newspapers or websites that report on the peer-reviewed literature directly, but from blog sites which often are oblivious to the peer-reviewed literature or directly contradict it with fallacious arguments. The authors of these sites often have little or no expertise in the field and personal biases that go unchecked by the lack of any review process.

Sure...

You have to read a "blog".

Follow the sources

And make up your own mind.

Is there anything new there?

You say that people need to read more primary sources.

I'm sorry, but the "Peer Reviewed" Journals need to join the Digital Library Age.

I suppose I can get in my CO₂ Belcher and drive to the nearest Research Library.

Where I can dig through musty stacks

Hope the journal hasn't been sent out to binding

Photocopy the articles that look like they might be interesting.

Bring them back home.

The US Government climate report is a 100+ page report that is nothing more than an executive summary. It has good references... but they're a pain to dig through.

Why can't they at least hyperlink sources that you can actually transparently get to them?

We spend our tax money for NASA, research universities, etc... But digging up the primary data can be a pain.

Perhaps the analytic groups need to do more than presenting a "black box".

Yes, I imagine the guts of their calculations are intense.

But there has to be a way to present the information in a "readable" method.

For example, under the Sea Ice topic... the PIOMAS system has an instability that caused a spurious "Flash Crash" last summer. So... If I'm to trust their predictions, they need to feed the data to me that caused the error. Did their system predict a gain in ice mass mid-summer? Can they present an easily viewable model that predicted the drop of mass in May? Why?

Going through the NASA temperature website, it is hard to tell what data has been filtered, what hasn't, how. And... then these data get fed into various models. Some is used. Some is excluded. The data gets interpolated up the wazoo. I can download a gridded data set. But, that appears to just be a new way to present their dot-pictures. And, rebuilding it would be a nightmare. And it still doesn't necessarily give me the model that created the data set.

You can't expect every researcher to make a state of the art data-management/presentation system... But the primary groups? NOAA? NASA?

I've liked the Fowler Ice Ageing animation (Figure 4)

http://nsidc.org/new...0810_index.html

But, it seems to present a GROSSLY INACCURATE IMAGE OF THE SEA ICE IN THE 80'S, and the images are quite different than the models that many other researchers present.

I suppose I would have expected the NSIDC to validate the models that they present on their website.

I guess I feel bad that I've ever referred to that animation as I had thought it was based on some kind of actual "data".

Andrew, As I published long before this paper came out, one should not

(yet) use ISCCP for long-term monitoring... the project was not

designed for this purpose at all.

Hmmm.........

One of the issues of the entire global warming issue is that we're using temperature data that were never for global climate monitoring, and potential temperature increases less than .05 degree increase per year.

We have great multi-century temperature records from places like London. But, they are the worst possible sited, and controlled records, again because they weren't designed for long-term fraction of a degree climate monitoring.

Even much of the multi-million dollar space equipment is poorly calibrated, in part because it was never intended for climate monitoring.

Huge numbers of weather stations have vanished... or have huge data gaps. Are the satellites the cause of some of the recent data gaps?

Short Data Sets...?

Yet, many of the data sets currently being used for baseline analysis were started in a solar minimum.

And much of the data exists.

Just nobody has bothered to dig up ancient satellite imagery. Cold war surveillance imagery? Of course, spy satellites weren't designed for climate monitoring either.

[WXinCanton]

WUWT is awesome!!!! Daily read for me

[skierinvermont]

Sure...

You have to read a "blog".

Follow the sources

And make up your own mind.

Is there anything new there?

You say that people need to read more primary sources.

I'm sorry, but the "Peer Reviewed" Journals need to join the Digital Library Age.

I suppose I can get in my CO₂ Belcher and drive to the nearest Research Library.

Where I can dig through musty stacks

Hope the journal hasn't been sent out to binding

Photocopy the articles that look like they might be interesting.

Bring them back home.

The US Government climate report is a 100+ page report that is nothing more than an executive summary. It has good references... but they're a pain to dig through.

Why can't they at least hyperlink sources that you can actually transparently get to them?

We spend our tax money for NASA, research universities, etc... But digging up the primary data can be a pain.

Perhaps the analytic groups need to do more than presenting a "black box".

Yes, I imagine the guts of their calculations are intense.

But there has to be a way to present the information in a "readable" method.

ALL peer-reviewed journals are online now. It's just that in some cases you need to have a subscription or be affiliated with a research institution (like a college or university) to access them. Unfortunately, since I don't have complete access anymore.. However...

I find that I can find most peer-reviewed articles through a simple goggle search. And if I can't find the article, I can find good summaries including figures from the articles.

Blogs which have good sources in the peer-reviewed literature are fine.. but places like WUWT and the Heritage Foundation rarely cite the peer reviewed literature, except to make misleading incorrect arguments against it.

For example, under the Sea Ice topic... the PIOMAS system has an instability that caused a spurious "Flash Crash" last summer. So... If I'm to trust their predictions, they need to feed the data to me that caused the error. Did their system predict a gain in ice mass mid-summer? Can they present an easily viewable model that predicted the drop of mass in May? Why?

I responded to this post of yours explaining why your argument that the drop in PIOMAS last summer was spurious was incorrect. You are making a an apples to orange comparison. You can find the peer-reviewed articles that explain the methodology for the model.

You probably missed my response to your incorrect post about PIOMAS. It's post #74 in this thread: http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php?/topic/13138-no-tipping-point-for-arctic-sea-ice/page__st__60

Going through the NASA temperature website, it is hard to tell what data has been filtered, what hasn't, how. And... then these data get fed into various models. Some is used. Some is excluded. The data gets interpolated up the wazoo. I can download a gridded data set. But, that appears to just be a new way to present their dot-pictures. And, rebuilding it would be a nightmare. And it still doesn't necessarily give me the model that created the data set.

The methodology for GISS is included in peer-reviewed journal articles which are available on the GISS website.

You can even download the actual computer code that is used to make GISS temperature data. If you don't understand the code, maybe you should leave this one to people who actually do.

You can't expect every researcher to make a state of the art data-management/presentation system... But the primary groups? NOAA? NASA?

I've liked the Fowler Ice Ageing animation (Figure 4)

http://nsidc.org/new...0810_index.html

But, it seems to present a GROSSLY INACCURATE IMAGE OF THE SEA ICE IN THE 80'S, and the images are quite different than the models that many other researchers present.

I suppose I would have expected the NSIDC to validate the models that they present on their website.

I guess I feel bad that I've ever referred to that animation as I had thought it was based on some kind of actual "data".

Why is it that you believe the Fowler diagram is wrong? Every peer-reviewed article I have read on arctic sea ice says that volume was much higher in the 80s and the ice was much older. Then in 1992 (I think) the Beaufort Gyre broke down and a lot of multi-year thick ice was lost. There was also a large exodus of multi-year ice in 2007 and 2008 and very little old ice remains. The Fowler diagram represents this well. You said you have sources that disagree.. well I would like to see them.

Hmmm.........

One of the issues of the entire global warming issue is that we're using temperature data that were never for global climate monitoring, and potential temperature increases less than .05 degree increase per year.

We have great multi-century temperature records from places like London. But, they are the worst possible sited, and controlled records, again because they weren't designed for long-term fraction of a degree climate monitoring.

Even much of the multi-million dollar space equipment is poorly calibrated, in part because it was never intended for climate monitoring.

Huge numbers of weather stations have vanished... or have huge data gaps. Are the satellites the cause of some of the recent data gaps?

Short Data Sets...?

Yet, many of the data sets currently being used for baseline analysis were started in a solar minimum.

And much of the data exists.

Just nobody has bothered to dig up ancient satellite imagery. Cold war surveillance imagery? Of course, spy satellites weren't designed for climate monitoring either.

That is why the data has been calibrated after the fact using tested procedures. I can refer you to an old post of mine explaining this methodology.

[CSt6804]

Last I checked Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician !!!!

So as far as I'm concerned, that movie and the hype that went with it was/is for political and financial gain of said politician or politicians and campaign donors to politicians. Or a whole political party for that matter. As long as global warming is tied to things like the CCX then it's all a bunch of bull. Regulating emissions is one thing, selling air is quite another. If global warming is such a real threat than why do bankers and wall street need to profit hugely from it ? I'm fairly confident the last ice age melt down didn't happen because the cavemen were burning too much coal or hacking down too many trees. Gas from cows ? Are you friggin kidding me !!!??? I absolutely agree it should be looked into scientifically. And maybe we could do more to conserve resources. I think most people would agree with that. It certainly can't hurt anytthing. But changing an entire national and global economy based on a theory that can't be proven is a load of crap. Cause that's what will happen. And why do you wonder the US economy is in the dumps ? Because China could give two terds about global warming. So less restrictive regulations followed up by free trade policy's brought to you by the same idiots selling the global warming agenda and what to do you get ? A mass extinction of US industry as it moves slowly but surely to China. Oh yeah, we will replace those jobs with green jobs. Ask Spain how that worked out for them. How many windmill mechanics do you think we will need for christ sakes ? And really skierinvermont, what do you have to gain by keeping the ball rolling on here. Who are you working for ?

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/09/24/spanish-prof-to-congress-avoid-spains-failed-experiment-with-green-jobs/

[Mallow]

Last I checked Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician !!!!

So as far as I'm concerned, that movie and the hype that went with it was/is for political and financial gain of said politician or politicians and campaign donors to politicians. Or a whole political party for that matter. As long as global warming is tied to things like the CCX then it's all a bunch of bull. Regulating emissions is one thing, selling air is quite another. If global warming is such a real threat than why do bankers and wall street need to profit hugely from it ? I'm fairly confident the last ice age melt down didn't happen because the cavemen were burning too much coal or hacking down too many trees. Gas from cows ? Are you friggin kidding me !!!??? I absolutely agree it should be looked into scientifically. And maybe we could do more to conserve resources. I think most people would agree with that. It certainly can't hurt anytthing. But changing an entire national and global economy based on a theory that can't be proven is a load of crap. Cause that's what will happen. And why do you wonder the US economy is in the dumps ? Because China could give two terds about global warming. So less restrictive regulations followed up by free trade policy's brought to you by the same idiots selling the global warming agenda and what to do you get ? A mass extinction of US industry as it moves slowly but surely to China. Oh yeah, we will replace those jobs with green jobs. Ask Spain how that worked out for them. How many windmill mechanics do you think we will need for christ sakes ? And really skierinvermont, what do you have to gain by keeping the ball rolling on here. Who are you working for ?

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/09/24/spanish-prof-to-congress-avoid-spains-failed-experiment-with-green-jobs/

Because clearly all of climate science is based on Al Gore and his movie.

Skier, thanks for this thread. Unfortunately, nimrods like the one above, and preachers like Bethesda, have turned me off this topic. I only rarely comment on climate change anymore, a topic I used to enjoy discussing. Repeating the same stuff over and over, and constantly debunking increasingly-deceptive lies masquerading as "truth" gets old very fast.

[BethesdaWX]

Last I checked Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician !!!!

So as far as I'm concerned, that movie and the hype that went with it was/is for political and financial gain of said politician or politicians and campaign donors to politicians. Or a whole political party for that matter. As long as global warming is tied to things like the CCX then it's all a bunch of bull. Regulating emissions is one thing, selling air is quite another. If global warming is such a real threat than why do bankers and wall street need to profit hugely from it ? I'm fairly confident the last ice age melt down didn't happen because the cavemen were burning too much coal or hacking down too many trees. Gas from cows ? Are you friggin kidding me !!!??? I absolutely agree it should be looked into scientifically. And maybe we could do more to conserve resources. I think most people would agree with that. It certainly can't hurt anytthing. But changing an entire national and global economy based on a theory that can't be proven is a load of crap. Cause that's what will happen. And why do you wonder the US economy is in the dumps ? Because China could give two terds about global warming. So less restrictive regulations followed up by free trade policy's brought to you by the same idiots selling the global warming agenda and what to do you get ? A mass extinction of US industry as it moves slowly but surely to China. Oh yeah, we will replace those jobs with green jobs. Ask Spain how that worked out for them. How many windmill mechanics do you think we will need for christ sakes ? And really skierinvermont, what do you have to gain by keeping the ball rolling on here. Who are you working for ?

http://www.institute...ith-green-jobs/

Dude.....really?

You are politicizing this as well...on the "right wing" side though.

[CSt6804]

Dude.....really?

You are politicizing this as well...on the "right wing" side though.

Typical response. How can anybody poiliticize the evil's of global warming? We have to save the earth for our children. Then hold up a picture of a polar bear drifting out to sea on an ice berg.

The topic of this thread basically say's how are we gonna debunk the nesayer's. That's kinda political don't ya think. Screw the science, let's point out the error's and slam their character. That's good politic's I mean science, huh. The science of global climate should be left at just that. Science. No matter what side of the fence somebody wants to sit on I think all would agree studying the impact man has had on the globe is not a bad investment. But cap and trade is a bad investment cause that's what we will get. Sending more US tax dollars off shore should be a crime. I don't care if a republican, conservative, liberal, democrate, progressive or an independant is in charge. The science of global warming has become a political issue. I didn't make it that way, they did. And they have made no room for maybe's. It's just yea or nay. And honestly we don't know. In the 70's it was the ice age is coming. Now it's the floods are coming. The GFS can't get tomorrow's weather right, how are they gonna model impending doom from global warming 50 year's from now ? It's fear tactic's no different than the right's tactic's of fear the terrorist's. AGW, whether it exist's or not, is about power and money.

[BethesdaWX]

Typical response. How can anybody poiliticize the evil's of global warming? We have to save the earth for our children. Then hold up a picture of a polar bear drifting out to sea on an ice berg.

The topic of this thread basically say's how are we gonna debunk the nesayer's. That's kinda political don't ya think. Screw the science, let's point out the error's and slam their character. That's good politic's I mean science, huh. The science of global climate should be left at just that. Science. No matter what side of the fence somebody wants to sit on I think all would agree studying the impact man has had on the globe is not a bad investment. But cap and trade is a bad investment cause that's what we will get. Sending more US tax dollars off shore should be a crime. I don't care if a republican, conservative, liberal, democrate, progressive or an independant is in charge. The science of global warming has become a political issue. I didn't make it that way, they did. And they have made no room for maybe's. It's just yea or nay. And honestly we don't know. In the 70's it was the ice age is coming. Now it's the floods are coming. The GFS can't get tomorrow's weather right, how are they gonna model impending doom from global warming 50 year's from now ? It's fear tactic's no different than the right's tactic's of fear the terrorist's. AGW, whether it exist's or not, is about power and money.

You are overblowing this. If politics should be kept out, why do you keep bringing them up?

I too would prefer a non-government organization to feed objective data to the public.....However I do not think it is logical to say there is ZERO AGW taking place.

I am skeptical of "significant" AGW...even "moderate" AGW seems farfetched to me....yet that tends to mean that I am a skeptical of the whole thing....which is not true.

[CSt6804]

You are overblowing this. If politics should be kept out, why do you keep bringing them up?

I too would prefer a non-government organization to feed objective data to the public.....However I do not think it is logical to say there is ZERO AGW taking place.

I am skeptical of "significant" AGW...even "moderate" AGW seems farfetched to me....yet that tends to mean that I am a skeptical of the whole thing....which is not true.

Well we are probably on the same page then. From everthing I have read in the recent years on AGW I think something is going on warming wise. But I also think it's cyclical. The only thing normal in the worlds weather and climate is that it is alway's changing. If it started being the same all the time then I would be really concerned. However in my forty some odd years kicking around I have seen these weather scientists wrong more than right. It just means as much as they have learned there is that much more they don't know. I read some of this climate change stuff and learn more about weather on my own time as an amatuer because I find it interesting. But when I see topics started like the one I saw here started by the skierinvermont guy who is gung ho to debunk all things that are against global warming it becomes politics to me and no longer about science. And I have really learned to dislike politics. That's really who that rant was directed to. It's irresponsible in my opinion

[WeatherRusty]

Well we are probably on the same page then. From everthing I have read in the recent years on AGW I think something is going on warming wise. But I also think it's cyclical. The only thing normal in the worlds weather and climate is that it is alway's changing. If it started being the same all the time then I would be really concerned. However in my forty some odd years kicking around I have seen these weather scientists wrong more than right. It just means as much as they have learned there is that much more they don't know. I read some of this climate change stuff and learn more about weather on my own time as an amatuer because I find it interesting. But when I see topics started like the one I saw here started by the skierinvermont guy who is gung ho to debunk all things that are against global warming it becomes politics to me and no longer about science. And I have really learned to dislike politics. That's really who that rant was directed to. It's irresponsible in my opinion

Go get em' skier. I can't wait for us to take over the world. Science be damned.

[BethesdaWX]

Well we are probably on the same page then. From everthing I have read in the recent years on AGW I think something is going on warming wise. But I also think it's cyclical. The only thing normal in the worlds weather and climate is that it is alway's changing. If it started being the same all the time then I would be really concerned. However in my forty some odd years kicking around I have seen these weather scientists wrong more than right. It just means as much as they have learned there is that much more they don't know. I read some of this climate change stuff and learn more about weather on my own time as an amatuer because I find it interesting. But when I see topics started like the one I saw here started by the skierinvermont guy who is gung ho to debunk all things that are against global warming it becomes politics to me and no longer about science. And I have really learned to dislike politics. That's really who that rant was directed to. It's irresponsible in my opinion

Perhaps.

Its one thing to say "it is possible that Co2 and our emissions may lead to significant warming", its another to say "with high confidence, the globe will warm to unprecedented levels". Anyone who can say that without laughing...I'm worried about them.

[Clifford]

I responded to this post of yours explaining why your argument that the drop in PIOMAS last summer was spurious was incorrect. You are making a an apples to orange comparison. You can find the peer-reviewed articles that explain the methodology for the model.

You probably missed my response to your incorrect post about PIOMAS. It's post #74 in this thread: http://www.americanw...ce/page__st__60

I provided you the links above. Apparently you didn't bother to follow them.

http://www.ijis.iarc...ce_Extent_L.png

http://nsidc.org/ima...608_Figure5.png

http://neven1.typepa...cbf47970c-800wi

According to PIOMAS,

Sometime in May, 2010 (before May 30, 2010), the Arctic was rapidly loosing significantly more ice volume than previous years. (first snip).

The loss had peaked by July 31, 2010 (second snip), and sometime in June/July, had gained 1000 cubic km ice (back towards the "mean" since this is anomaly data).

It is showing an excess loss of about 4,000 cubic km, and regaining about 3,000 cubic km back towards the mean over the course of the year.

They list a trend of a -3,500 cubic km loss per decade, and their model looses that much in one or two months? And then gains nearly the same amount back in 6 months? Are they saying that our Arctic can recover a decade's worth of declining trend in 6 months?

1000 cubic km = 1 million square km, 1 meter thick

Where did the model loose the excess 4 million square km (1 meter thick) during that timeframe?

If you look at the vertical distance between the lines in the JAXA graph, it does actually appear to show a maximum difference between 2008/2009 and 2010 of about 1 million square km of SEASONAL ICE, sometime around the end of June, first of July.

2008/9 and 2010 continued to loose SEASONAL ICE through July, the lines approached again,

There was no 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 sq km (1 meter thick) difference.

Nor was there a 1,000,000 sq km 4 meter thick difference between summer of 2008/9 and summer 2010 that magically disappeared mid-year, then reappeared by the end of the year, starting mid-summer.

Comparing May 30, 2009 to May 30, 2010 (beginning of the "Flash Crash"), JAXA is showing less than ½ million sq km difference.

Actually, perhaps the "flash crash" can be explained by looking at the JAXA graph (sq km).

January 1, 2010, the ice extent was virtually identical to 2008 & 2009.

However, by the end of January, 2010 was trailing behind 2008/9, but was actually ahead of 2006 & 2007.

For most of February, the 2010 ice extent trailed 2008/9. Based on the scale, the difference varied, sometimes meeting the curves, sometimes dropping ½ million sq km below.

2010 crossed the earlier lines in March, and didn't start loosing any significant ice until April 1 (2 weeks after 2008/9), at which point it had about ½ million sq km more ice.

By May, the SEASONAL ICE started melting faster than 2008/9, but really didn't diverge significantly from the expected progression of ice loss.

They took away more ice during this summer melt than they had added when the ice extent was the highest since 2002 earlier in the season.

So, differences showed up in the graph that didn't really exist.

And... somehow this ½ million sq km of SEASONAL ICE difference suddenly became nearly 4 thousand cubic km (or the equivalent of 4 million square km. 1 meter thick).

Looking at the University of Illinois Data, that difference early in the season just never existed. Although, the University of Illinois is tracking ice concentration, and not thickness/volume. The B&W images seemed more representative than the "False Color" images, even though these are weighted images and not photos. Dynamic colors show up with heavily weighting the 90-100% range, but it is unclear if those are representative of the actual state of the ice. Course threshold representations may be more representative of the actual ice state, but these weighted BW images seem to indicate some of the ice/weather dynamics.

The darkness in the June 2010 image was a cyclone that was passing back and forth across the arctic since May.

The ice seemed to start breaking up by mid-july... And, it did look somewhat different by the end of July, early August.

So, perhaps there is some difference (at the time that the anomaly graph started trending upwards again).

2008 also showed a similar breakup of the ice (and was ranked lower by JAXA) in mid-September (but, very close to 2010).

I don't know.

By the end of September, the patches of broken ice from July/August were refrozen in place.

That 4 thousand cublic km "flash crash" never had data to support it.

I suppose any of these models could have inherent instabilities.

But, I don't see any better predictive nature in the PIOMAS model based on cubic kilometers vs the JAXA model based on square km.

We are hitting minimums of 4-6 million square km. At this point, it appears as if the majority of the ice is "new ice". A large proportion of the new ice seems to be flowing out of the Arctic rather than melting in the Arctic. So I don't believe that since the minimum in 2007, the continuing downward trend that PIOMAS shows is even meaningful, or representative of the current dynamics in the arctic.

Nor does an anomaly graph do a good job at representing the true dynamics of what is happening in the arctic.

What I was looking for with the PIPS system was a graphical representation of the ice dynamics.

Whether it has absolute accuracy, it is built upon the same "ageing" principle that Fowler and others have proposed (I'll comment on that later).