Tree Stumps More Reliable Than Emails

[LakeEffectKing]

There is a HUGE difference between making a projection, whether based on research or just opinion, and deliberately spreading lies and misinformation. Saying "Summer arctic sea ice will be effectively gone by 2015" is a prediction. It will turn out either true of false, but even if false it is still just a prediction. Saying "There's been no global warming since 1998" is a lie. A lie that has been refuted multiple times yet still keeps getting repeated. Can you not understand the difference? There's an old saying that everyone's entitle to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

And I'm sure you're aware that an integral facet of any hypothesis or theory is its predictive ability. I think it's safe to say that whether theory is corroborated or falsified depends on how well it makes predictions. Mainstream AGW has predicted (among other things) that global warming will continue as long as GHGs levels keep rising, that extreme weather events are more likely in a warmer world, and that arctic sea ice summer mimimums will continue to drop until the arctic is essentially ice free in summer. None of those predictions are alarmist, they are simply expected consequences of increasing GHG concentratrions. Analyses of available data is the only way to assess the validity of the AGW predictions. That's the scientific method, right, there is no PR involved and nobody is ramming anything anywhere.

Can you help us understand why you seem to have a problem with this?

So is "Ice free by 2015" an "integral facet (test) of the AGW hypothesis" or "just a prediction"?

[tacoman25]

Actually, there is very little real "alarmism" that isn't debunked pretty quickly by the "alarmists", for fear of credibility loss in front of their fellow "alarmists".

So the stuff that sees the light of day is indeed scientific and reasonable, especially when compared to what is emanating (methane? hydrogen sulfide?) from the other side of the fence

A certain element of alarmism is ingrained into AGW, thanks to how the science came to light in the public eye: through men such as James Hansen and Al Gore. In addition, scientists and AGW proponents aren't stupid. They know that studies/statements that grab the media's attention tend to be ones that are more extreme and alarming. There are examples of this in threads right now on this forum.

To deny this is to deny reality.

[tacoman25]

So is "Ice free by 2015" an "integral facet (test) of the AGW hypothesis" or "just a prediction"?

A big part of the problem is that a lot of predictions based on AGW theory are treated like fact. For example, the current thread about Milwaukee's winter climate by mid-century. But then people don't like it when skeptics point out the inherent uncertainty and complexity that these predictions often ignore.

[PhillipS]

Sorry Pollyanna, but there certainly is PR and ramming on both sides of the debate. Do you not believe there is such a thing as AGW alarmism? Do you think everyone on "that side" is perfectly reasonable and totally scientific? And do you really think everyone more on the skeptic side is just telling lies?

Of course there is PR and spin from the mainstream AGW as well as skeptics and denialists. But the examples he gave - the prediction by some that the arctic will be essentially ice free in summer by 2015, and that extreme weather events are more likely as global tempteratures continue to increase - are not PR or alarmism. They are simply predictions, and are the sort of predictions integral to testing the validity of mainstream AGW.

It is also not alarmist to notice that there have been a large number of extreme weather events during the past few years. The record is what the record is. Nor is it alarmist to comment that recent weather is in line with the AGW prediction. But if any AGW supporter claims the prediction is confirmed based on recent weather he is flat wrong. As has been repeatedly stated on this and other climate change forums - one year, several years, even a decade or two of weather data doesn't constitute a valid trend for climate. That's too short a period. The long-term, 30 year or longer, trends are what people need to look at for assessing climate change.

[hazwoper]

Great explanation and I'd agree with this. Vineyard Sound is an amazing place (the area that South Cape Beach is in). There are spots between south cape beach and the vineyard that are only 1-2' deep at low tide in some years even miles from shore.

Yeah, it really is such an intersting process. Although I find it funny that this thread has now completely folded from it's initial discussion to the typical back and forth. What a shame. It would be nice if folks on here took a moment to look at other issues such as the build up of our barrier islands and the costs to taxpayers to keep the uber rich ocean front home owners happy. This process has been ongoing for some time now and has nothing what so ever to do with AGW and has caused much damage to our ecosystems to this point. But, alas, this is the Climate Change forum, so I can understand.

[PhillipS]

So is "Ice free by 2015" an "integral facet (test) of the AGW hypothesis" or "just a prediction"?

Making predictions based on a theory is an integral facet of the scientific method. As for arctic ice - I believe that the IPCC predicted ice-free summers by 2050, but I'll check that figure.

[ORH_wxman]

Of course there is PR and spin from the mainstream AGW as well as skeptics and denialists. But the examples he gave - the prediction by some that the arctic will be essentially ice free in summer by 2015, and that extreme weather events are more likely as global tempteratures continue to increase - are not PR or alarmism. They are simply predictions, and are the sort of predictions integral to testing the validity of mainstream AGW.

It is also not alarmist to notice that there have been a large number of extreme weather events during the past few years. The record is what the record is. Nor is it alarmist to comment that recent weather is in line with the AGW prediction. But if any AGW supporter claims the prediction is confirmed based on recent weather he is flat wrong. As has been repeatedly stated on this and other climate change forums - one year, several years, even a decade or two of weather data doesn't constitute a valid trend for climate. That's too short a period. The long-term, 30 year or longer, trends are what people need to look at for assessing climate change.

I'm sorry, but completely unrealistic predictions of sea ice being gone in 4 years is alarmist behavior. Maybe you do not see it that way, but most people would consider that outlandish. Why even make such a prediction?

"Noticing that there have been a large number extreme events" in recent years is not the same as plastering headlines all over the news that seemingly every extreme weather event is because of AGW. Especially when the data says otherwise. This goes two ways...its not a one way street. It is human nature to have confirmation bias when you strongly believe in an idea. This is probably why we saw studies 7-10 years ago blame the warmer winters and positive AO on AGW....only now to have some blaming the recent -AO and colder mid-latitude winters on AGW as well. After all, any change in the arctic oscillation MUST be due to AGW, right?

[tacoman25]

Of course there is PR and spin from the mainstream AGW as well as skeptics and denialists. But the examples he gave - the prediction by some that the arctic will be essentially ice free in summer by 2015, and that extreme weather events are more likely as global tempteratures continue to increase - are not PR or alarmism. They are simply predictions, and are the sort of predictions integral to testing the validity of mainstream AGW.

It is also not alarmist to notice that there have been a large number of extreme weather events during the past few years. The record is what the record is. Nor is it alarmist to comment that recent weather is in line with the AGW prediction. But if any AGW supporter claims the prediction is confirmed based on recent weather he is flat wrong. As has been repeatedly stated on this and other climate change forums - one year, several years, even a decade or two of weather data doesn't constitute a valid trend for climate. That's too short a period. The long-term, 30 year or longer, trends are what people need to look at for assessing climate change.

Kind of how people started going nuts about AGW and hurricanes after Katrina? In hindsight, I think it's fair to say that was alarmism. Just as I believe getting all worked up about recent "extreme" events and trying to associate them all with AGW is alarmism.

[PhillipS]

2030 IIRC.

Well, I should know better than to rely on my poor memory. According to NSIDC:

In its 2007 report, the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

said that in the “business as usual” scenario, the Arctic could become ice free in summer around 2100.

2035 is what NOAA predicts based on their models.

Personally, I lean more towards the nearer date.

[aslkahuna]

Since the question of sea level rises has come up, I make short note of a couple of articles I recently read in EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union. I have arthritis which effectively prevents me from coming back here to the computer once I leave (unable to get up very often) so I'll provide the particulars later. Bottom line, recent research into the sea level rise (some 6 meters) accompanying the interglacial period prior to the current one suggests that recent claims that thermal expansion accounts for up to 70% or the current rise are exaggerated and that the rise during the period of study due to thermal expansion was 10% of the total at best. The implication for those studying the potential effects of GW is that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets may be more sensitive to temperature change than currently thought. The second study indiscated that there is an INVERSE relationship between the rate of sea level rise along the US West Coast and the phase of the PDO-during the recent warm phase the sea level rise was basically nil. Based upon this, the authors of the study felt that sea level rise rates should increase sharply along the West Coast during the current cold phase.

Steve

[tacoman25]

Well, I should know better than to rely on my poor memory. According to NSIDC:

In its 2007 report, the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

said that in the “business as usual” scenario, the Arctic could become ice free in summer around 2100.

2035 is what NOAA predicts based on their models.

Personally, I lean more towards the nearer date.

It's tough to keep track of, since many of these predictions vary and change.

[tacoman25]

because The Telegraph is a tabloid and prints whatever sensationalist crap it can to get readers.

if you read the link in that thread you find no link or citation for any peer-reviewed research and a comment that it was based on a non-peer-reviewed paper given 5 years ago.

He was talking about alarmism for AGW. Not saying it represented peer-reviewed research.

[WeatherRusty]

He was talking about alarmism for AGW. Not saying it represented peer-reviewed research.

Are you then saying the blame for the perceived alarmism should not be placed at the feet of the scientists who are involved in research?

I don't think it should be, because the science is telling us what is plausible within the framework of Earth's climate past. It is not alarmist to expect many meters of sea level rise if global temps rise 3C for instance. Unleash methane from melting arctic permafrost in the process and 6C is not out of the question by any means. When last the Earth was 6C warmer than today there was no permanent arctic ice cap.

[dabize]

because The Telegraph is a tabloid and prints whatever sensationalist crap it can to get readers.

if you read the link in that thread you find no link or citation for any peer-reviewed research and a comment that it was based on a non-peer-reviewed paper given 5 years ago.

IIRC, the premise was the extrapolation of the precipitous volume losses (PIOMAS) seen at summer minima.

They intercepted zero around 2015/16. Perhaps not particularly well based, but hardly alarmist.

I believe there is a poll in that thread too - the idea was certainly not put forward as anything that is established, but as something to begin a discussion.

It is FAR more legitimate to have something like that as a subject for discussion than bringing up those rehacked, out of context e-mails.

[dabize]

meh. it's just as bad in its own way. but I don't get the ice mania that dominates the discussion in this subforum.

Matter of taste.

A lot of people here love maps and mechanism and ice loss/retention discussions can give those desires free rein.

Dirty politics, on the other hand, just suck.

[ORH_wxman]

Matter of taste.

A lot of people here love maps and mechanism and ice loss/retention discussions can give those desires free rein.

Dirty politics, on the other hand, just suck.

Ice is something very tangible and easy to see. It represents the poster child for AGW for many people. With the deceleration in global temperature rise recently, its something to focus on that still shows a worrisome trend. Its easy for the public to latch onto it.

[Amped]

because that is what this forum is full of.

again, the comment I objected to was the unsubstantiated claim that global warming science has been faked and covered up.

I never said it was settled science. and Landsea does agree with Emanuel that global warming could be a contributor to the strength of very powerful hurricanes--athough there is a difference of degree.

thats what every thread in this subforum ends up turning into.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

"...climate science is a vigorous enterprise where scientists were free to argue over conclusions. “Scientists rely on the ability to have frank, sometimes even contentious discussions with each other,” . “Science requires that.”

It's nice that everyone has taken a step back and is listening to one another, good discussion.

[aslkahuna]

Here's the reference to the articles I mentioned yesterday. It's Volume 40 #92 dated 4 October 2011.the URL for EOS is http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos

Steve

[TerryM]

Here's the reference to the articles I mentioned yesterday. It's Volume 40 #92 dated 4 October 2011.the URL for EOS is http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos

Steve

Steve

Perhaps this might help to explain why the models have been so far off regarding the timing of the demise of the ice. No one expected the losses we're experiencing.

[aslkahuna]

Steve

Perhaps this might help to explain why the models have been so far off regarding the timing of the demise of the ice. No one expected the losses we're experiencing.

That is certainly the implication of the study referenced.

Steve