Regular readers may recall some of the posts here, here, here, and here, where the sea ice data presented by NSIDC and by Cryosphere today were brought into question. We finally have an end to this year’s arctic melt season, and our regular contributor on sea-ice, Steven Goddard, was able to ask Dr. Walt Meier, who operates the National Snow and Ice Data Center 10 questions, and they are presented here for you. I have had correspondence with Dr. Meier and found him straightforward and amiable. If only other scientists were so gracious with questions from the public. – Anthony
Questions from Steven Goddard:
Dr. Walt Meier from The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has graciously agreed to answer 10 of my favorite Arctic questions. His much appreciated responses below are complete and unedited.
1. Many GISS stations north of 60 latitude show temperatures 70 years ago being nearly as warm as today. This pattern is seen from Coppermine, Canada (115W) all the way east to Dzardzan, Siberia (124E.) The 30 year satellite record seems to correspond to a period of warming, quite similar to a GISS reported period in the 1920s and 1930s. Is it possible that Arctic temperatures are cyclical rather than on a linear upwards trend?
No. Analysis of the temperatures does not support a cyclic explanation for the recent warming. The warming during the 1920s and 1930s was more regional in nature and focused on the Atlantic side of the Arctic (though there was warming in some other regions as well) and was most pronounced during winter. In contrast, the current warming is observed over almost the entire Arctic and is seen in all seasons. Another thing that is clear is that, the warming during the 1920s and 1930s was limited to the Arctic and lower latitude temperatures were not unusually warm. The recent warming in the Arctic, though amplified there, is part of a global trend where temperatures are rising in most regions of the earth. There are always natural variations in climate but the current warming in the Arctic is not explained by such variations.
2. The US Weather Bureau wrote a 1922 article describing drastic Arctic warming and ice loss. In that article, the author wrote that waters around Spitzbergen warmed 12C over just a few years and that ships were able to sail in open waters north of 81N. This agrees with the GISS record, which would seem to imply that the Arctic can and does experience significant warming unrelated to CO2. Do you believe that what we are seeing now is different from that event, and why?
Yes. The current warming is different from the conditions described in the article. The Weather Bureau article is specifically discussing the North Atlantic region around Spitsbergen, not the Arctic as a whole. The Arctic has historically shown regional variations in climate, with one region warmer than normal while another region was cooler, and then after a while flipping to the opposite conditions. As discussed above, the current warming is different in nature; it is pan-Arctic and is part of widespread warming over most of the earth.
3. A number of prominent papers, including one from Dr. James Hansen in 2003, describe the important role of man-made soot in Arctic melt and warming. Some have hypothesized that the majority of melt and warming is due to soot. How is this issue addressed by NSIDC?
NSIDC does not have any scientists who currently study the effect of soot on melt and warming. Soot, dust and other pollution can enhance melting by lower the albedo (reflectance of solar energy). However, it is not clear that soot has increased significantly in the Arctic. Russia is a major source of soot in the Arctic and Russian soot declined dramatically after the break-up of the former Soviet Union – just as sea ice decline was starting to accelerate. Furthermore, while soot on the snow/ice surface will enhance melt, soot and other aerosols in the atmosphere have a cooling effect that would slow melt. Thus, the effect of soot, while it may contribute in some way, cannot explain the dramatic rate of warming and melt seen in the Arctic seen over the past 30 years.
4. The NSIDC Sea Ice News and Analysis May 2008 report seems to have forecast more ice loss than has actually occurred, including forecasts of a possible “ice-free North Pole.” Please comment on this?
What NSIDC provided in its May report was “a simple estimate of the likelihood of breaking last year’s September record.” This gave an average estimate that was below 2007, but included a range that included a possibility of being above 2007. With the melt season in the Arctic ending for the year, the actual 2008 minimum is near the high end of this range. In its June report, NSIDC further commented on its minimum estimate by stating that much of the thin ice that usually melts in summer was much farther north than normal and thus would be less likely to melt.
In the May report, NSIDC also quoted a colleague, Sheldon Drobot at the University of Colorado, who used a more sophisticated forecast model to estimate a 59% chance of setting a new record low – far from a sure-thing. NSIDC also quoted colleague Ron Lindsey at the University of Washington, who used a physical model to estimate “a very low, but not extreme [i.e., not record-breaking], sea ice minimum.” He also made an important point, cautioning that “that sea ice conditions are now changing so rapidly that predictions based on relationships developed from the past 50 years of data may no longer apply.” Thus NSIDC’s report was a balanced assessment of the possibility of setting a new record, taking account of different methods and recognizing the uncertainty inherent any seasonal forecast, especially under conditions that had not been seen before.
For the first time in our records, the North Pole was covered by seasonal ice (i.e., ice that grew since the end of the previous summer). Since seasonal ice is thinner than multiyear ice (i.e., ice that has survived at least one melt season) and vulnerable to melting completely, there was a possibility that the ice edge could recede beyond the pole and leaving the pole completely ice-free. This would be fundamentally different from events in the past where a crack in the ice might temporarily expose some open water at the pole in the midst of surrounding ice. It would mean completely ice-free conditions at the geographic North Pole (just the pole, not the entire Arctic Ocean). The remarkable thing was not whether the North Pole would be ice-free or not; it was that this year, for the first time in a long time it was possible. This does not bode well for the long-term health of the sea ice
The fact that the initial analysis of potential minimum ice extent and an ice-free pole did not come to pass reflects a cooler and cloudier summer that wasn’t as conducive to ice loss as it might have been. There will always be natural variations, with cooler than normal conditions possible for a time. However, despite the lack of extreme conditions, the minimum extent in 2008 is the second lowest ever and very close to last year. Most importantly, the 2008 minimum reinforces the long-term declining trend that is not due to natural climate fluctuations.
5. The June 2008 NSIDC web site entry mentioned that it is difficult to melt first year ice at very high latitudes. Is it possible that there is a lower practical bound to ice extent, based on the very short melt season and low angle of the sun near the North Pole?
It is unlikely that there is a lower bound to sea ice extent. One of the things that helped save this year from setting a record was that the seasonal ice was so far north and did not melt as much as seasonal ice at lower latitudes would. The North Pole, being the location that last sees the sun rise and first sees the sun set, has the longest “polar night” and shortest “polar day.” Thus, it receives the least amount of solar radiation in the Arctic. So there is less energy and less time to melt ice at the pole. However there is a feedback where the more ice that is melted, the easier it is to melt still more ice. This is because the exposed ocean absorbs more heat than the ice and that heat can further melt the ice. Eventually, we will get to a state where there is enough heat absorbed during the summer, even at the shorter summer near the pole, to completely melt the sea ice. Climate models have also shown that under warmer conditions, the Arctic sea ice will completely melt during summer.
6. GISS records show most of Greenland cooler today than 70 years ago. Why should we be concerned?
We should be concerned because the warming in Greenland of 70 years ago was part of the regional warming in the North Atlantic region discussed in questions 1 and 2 above. Seventy years ago one might expect temperatures to eventually cool as the regional climate fluctuated from a warmer state to a cooler state. The current Greenland warming, while not yet quite matching the temperatures of 70 years ago, is part of a global warming signal that for the foreseeable future will continue to increase temperatures (with of course occasional short-term fluctuations), in Greenland and around the world. This will eventually, over the coming centuries, lead to significant melting of the Greenland ice sheet and sea level rise with accompanying impacts on coastal regions.
7. Antarctica seems to be gaining sea ice, and eastern Antarctica is apparently cooling. Ocean temperatures in most of the Southern Hemisphere don’t seem to be changing much. How does this fit in to models which predicted symmetric NH/SH warming (i.e. Hansen 1980)? Shouldn’t we expect to see broad warming of southern hemisphere waters?
No. Hansen’s model of 1980 is no longer relevant as climate models have improved considerably in the past 28 years. Current models show a delayed warming in the Antarctic region in agreement with observations. A delayed warming is expected from our understanding of the climate processes. Antarctic is a continent surrounded on all sides by an ocean. Strong ocean currents and winds swirl around the continent. These act as a barrier to heat coming down from lower latitudes. The winds and currents have strengthened in recent years, partly in response to the ozone hole. But while most of the Antarctic has cooled, the one part of Antarctica that does interact with the lower latitudes, the Antarctic Peninsula – the “thumb” of the continent that sticks up toward South America – is a region that has undergone some of the most dramatic warming over the past decades.
Likewise, Antarctic sea ice is also insulated from the warming because of the isolated nature of Antarctica and the strong circumpolar winds and currents. There are increasing trends in Antarctic sea ice extent, but they are fairly small and there is so much variability in the Antarctic sea ice from year to year that is difficult to ascribe any significance to the trends – they could simply be an artifact of natural variability. Even if the increasing trend is real, this is not unexpected in response to slightly cooler temperatures.
This is in stark contrast with the Arctic where there are strong decreasing trends that cannot be explained by natural variability. These decreasing Arctic trends are seen throughout every region in every season. Because much of the Arctic has been covered by multiyear ice that doesn’t melt during the summer, the downward trend in the summer and the loss of the multiyear ice has a particularly big impact on climate. In contrast, the Antarctic has very little multiyear sea ice and most of the ice cover melts away completely each summer. So the impact of any Antarctic sea ice trends on climate is less than in the Arctic. There is currently one clearly significant sea ice trend in the Antarctic; it is in the region bordering the Antarctic Peninsula, and it is a declining trend.
Because the changes in Antarctic sea ice are not yet significant in terms of climate change, they do not receive the same attention as the changes in the Arctic. It doesn’t mean that Antarctic sea ice is uninteresting, unimportant, or unworthy of scientific study. In fact, there is a lot of research being conducted on Antarctic sea ice and several scientific papers have been recently published on the topic.
8. In January, 2008 the Northern Hemisphere broke the record for the greatest snow extent ever recorded. What caused this?
The large amount of snow was due to weather and short-term climate fluctuations. Extreme weather events, even extreme cold and snow, will still happen in a warmer world. There is always natural variability. Weather extremes are always a part of climate and always will be. In fact, the latest IPCC report predicts more extreme weather due to global warming. It is important to remember that weather is not climate. The extreme January 2008 snowfall is not a significant factor in long-term climate change. One cold, snowy month does not make a climate trend and a cold January last year does not negate a decades-long pattern of warming. This is true of unusually warm events – one heat wave or one low sea ice year does not “prove” global warming. It is the 30-year significant downward trend in Arctic sea ice extent, which has accelerated in recent years, that is the important indicator of climate change.
9. Sea Surface Temperatures are running low near southern Alaska, and portions of Alaska are coming off one of their coldest summers on record. Will this affect ice during the coming winter?
It is possible that this year there could be an earlier freeze-up and more ice off of southern Alaska in the Bering Sea due to the colder temperatures. But again, this represents short-term variability and says nothing about long-term climate change. I would also note that in the Bering Sea winds often control the location of the ice edge more than temperature. Winds blowing from the north will push the ice edge southward and result in more ice cover. Winds blowing from the south will push the edge northward and result in less total ice.
10. As a result of being bombarded by disaster stories from the press and politicians, it often becomes difficult to filter out the serious science from organisations like NSIDC. In your own words, what does the public need to know about the Arctic and its future?
I agree that the media and politicians sometimes sensationalize stories on global warming. At NSIDC we stick to the science and report our near-real-time analyses as accurately as possible. Scientists at NSIDC, like the rest of the scientific community, publish our research results in peer-reviewed science journals.
There is no doubt that the Arctic is undergoing dramatic change. Sea ice is declining rapidly, Greenland is experience greater melt, snow is melting earlier, glaciers are receding, permafrost is thawing, flora and fauna are migrating northward. The traditional knowledge of native peoples, passed down through generations, is no longer valid. Coastal regions once protected by the sea ice cover are now being eroded by pounding surf from storms whipped up over the ice-free ocean. These dramatic changes are Arctic-wide and are a harbinger of what is to come in the rest of the world. Such wide-ranging change cannot be explained through natural processes. There is a clear human fingerprint, through greenhouse gas emissions, on the changing climate of the Arctic.
Changes in the Arctic will impact the rest of the world. Because the Arctic is largely ice-covered year-round, it acts as a “refrigerator” for the earth, keeping the Arctic and the rest of the earth cooler than it would be without ice. The contrast between the cold Arctic and the warmer lower latitudes plays an important role in the direction and strength of winds and currents. These in turn affect weather patterns. Removing summer sea ice in the Arctic will alter these patterns. How exactly they will change is still an unresolved question, but the impacts will be felt well beyond the Arctic.
The significant changes in the Arctic are key pieces of evidence for global warming, but the observations from Arctic are complemented by evidence from around the world. That evidence is reported in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles.
Let me close by putting Arctic change and climate science within the broader scientific framework. Skepticism is the hallmark of science. A good scientist is skeptical. A good scientist understands that no theory can be “proven”. Most theories develop slowly and all scientific theories are subject to rejection or modification in light of new evidence, including the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Since the first thoughts of a possible human influence on climate over a hundred years ago, more and more evidence has accumulated and the idea gradually gained credibility. So much evidence has now been gathered from multiple disciplines that there is a clear consensus among scientists that humans are significantly altering the climate. That consensus is based on hard evidence. And some of the most important pieces of evidence are coming from the Arctic.
Mr. Goddard, through his demonstrated skeptical and curious nature, clearly has the soul of a scientist. I thank him for his invitation to share my knowledge of sea ice and Arctic climate. I also thank Anthony Watts for publishing my responses. It is through such dialogue that the public will hopefully better understand the unequivocal evidence for anthropogenic global warming so that informed decisions can be made to address the impacts that are already being seen in the Arctic and that will soon be felt around the world. And thanks to Stephanie Renfrow and Ted Scambos at NSIDC, and Jim Overland at the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory for their helpful comments.
Thanks once again to Dr. Walt Meier from NSIDC. He has spent a lot of time answering these questions and many others, and has been extremely responsive and courteous throughout the process.
Joel Shore (12:46:17) :
If you asked that here, there’s a decent chance you’ll get similar figures. And a 100% chance of getting comments from people debating if the problem is cooling ala the Dalton Minimum or the Little Ice Age.
Richard S Courtney says:
No you haven’t. You’ve made claims about AGW that are exactly the sort of claims made about evolution by those who attack evolutionary theory (no empirical evidence, …). And you make claims about evolutionary theory which, although I agree with them, are counter to what those attacking evolutionary theory would claim about it.
Basically, your argument boils down to saying, “What those people who attack evolutionary theory say about it is wrong but these claims do in fact apply to AGW.” Well, that is all fine and good but I hope you can see that those of us who find the similar claims made about evolutionary theory and AGW by naysayers to both be wrong will not find this argument very compelling.
By the way, for those interested in how claims such Richard Courtney’s making an analogy between AGW and eugenics get started, I should note that a little more web research has shown that I appear to be incorrect in attributing it to Crichton…or, at least, for the implicit suggestion that Crichton was the original source for this idea. In fact, Crichton’s source for the idea appears to be Richard Lindzen in this 1995 paper: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/180_Eugenics.pdf
Joel Shore:
*Ahem* Yes, it does mean that we should mistrust those organizations that have a clear financial motive in a particular outcome.
Note that the Newsweek article, which cited the NOAA’s scientists’ conclusions of the ‘fact’ of imminent global cooling in the near future, was 100% wrong.
Now, however, some other scientists have concluded that the planet is undergoing severe global warming — despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. And we are being told to accept their pronouncements, based on faith alone.
The global cooling frenzy reported by Newsweek was no different in principle than the AGW/runaway global warming/climate catastrophe frenzy that is in current circulation.
Neither hypothesis was anything more than rank speculation, based only on opinion and/or vague and always-inaccurate computer models.
The undeniable fact that putative experts, such as Prof. Mann, have adamantly refused to disclose their taxpayer-funded data or methodologies, indicates deliberate deceit. They are asking the public to buy a pig in a poke; to trust them, without verification.
Until the climate alarmists come clean, their motives are rightly suspect. If Joel Shore or any other apologist for Michael Mann’s hiding of taxpayer-funded science can provide an excuse for Mann’s refusal to disclose his taxpayer-funded data and algorithms, then now is the time to explain why the deliberate hiding of his data is acceptable.
The ball, as they say, is in your court.
Steven Goddard (16:31:12) :
phil,
I have discussed the map distortion with William Chapman at CT and verified that I am counting the “right pixels.” So please drop this subject. It is extremely annoying to have to explain this to you over and over again.
I’m sure it’s extremely annoying for you to face up to your egregious error, however if instead of brazening it out you would simply admit your error you wouldn’t have to deal with it any more! Both Dr Meier and Dr Chapman have pointed out on here that your approach was mistaken.
Walt Meier (15:23:35) :
“Mr. Goddard’s approach to counting pixels is simply not the correct approach. First, let me clarify a couple things.
5. People have talked a lot about “pixels”, but one needs to understand what one is talking about. There are two types of “pixels”. One is “data pixels”; this is a function of the spatial resolution of the sensor (i.e., how small of an area the sensor can resolve). For the data UIUC and NSIDC uses, the data pixels are about 25 x 25 km. The other is “image pixels”, which describes the qualities of the image.
6. The data has to be gridded onto a projection, which yields a gridded resolution, which is also about 25 x 25 km, but varies depending on the type of projection and where the grid cell within the projection. The input data for both UIUC and NSIDC is on a 25 x 25 km grid. The UIUC grid that Mr. Goddard analyzes has been interpolated onto a different grid. I do not know the specifics of that grid, but such interpolation will change how the data looks when viewed.
7. The data can then be conveyed in an image. The image has an “image pixel” resolution. This is generally given in dpi or dots per inch. Higher dpi means a sharper image. However it does NOT change the fundamental resolution of the data.
8. An image is simply a way to convey data; it is not data itself. Therefore it is not proper to do analysis on the image. You need to use the data.
9. The gridded data, when analyzed, must account for the projection in terms of the area of the grid cells. You have to sum the ice, weighted by the correct area for each grid cell. NSIDC uses a polar stereographic projection with a true latitude of 70 N. Other than at 70 N there will be distortion that needs to be corrected for, as NSIDC does.
10. NSIDC freely distributes all the data, tools to work with the data, and the grid cell area files. So anyone can do their own analysis.
12. Finally, Mr. Goddard need not have wasted his time doing his image pixel counting. He could’ve simply referred to the UIUC site, which actually counts the pixels properly and creates a timeseries plot:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
Hopefully Mr. Goddard will have a correction posted prominently on The Register as soon as possible.”
William Chapman (07:27:26) :
“Hi Folks,
The apparent differences Mr. Goddard observed between the NSIDC values and those produced comparing images from the CT are almost entirely due to the mistake of using pixel counting to compute area on severely distorted satellite projections.
Minor differences may come from:
(1) NSIDC uses a longer temporal averaging (around 10 days, I think) compared to the CT single-day plots.
(2) NSIDC uses a 15% threshold data cutoff; the CT cuts off concentrations below 30% in the comparison images.
Still, the above only account for percentage change differences of ~3%. The majority of the apparent difference comes from projection fun.
The satellite projected images should not be used to compute area/extent (or differences between area/extent from one year to the next). When I use the raw equal area grids as they come from NASA, before reprojecting onto my satellite projection, I get a 2007/2008 difference of around 10% in ice area around August 11 – consistent with what NSIDC is reporting. This has reduced to around 5% at present.”
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
What a crock.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
What a complete crock.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=23&fy=2007&sm=09&sd=23&sy=2008
A gold plated crock.
Thanks for the explanation, Steven. You might be shocked to learn that I even know about items like map projections and image distortion. In fact, I even know how to download and read actual data files (UIUC’s data are available online, so there was no reason to resort to counting pixels.).
Dr. Chapman from UIUC debunked your attempt to claim that your screw-up was the result of his colortable.
Have a good day!
An Inquirer:
“I can offer a dozen other explanations on why temperatures (and our measurement of temperatures) have moved the way that they have. There is nothing unusual occurring that cannot be explained by emergence from LIA, oscillations, volcanoes, solar variances, land use changes, tilts, orbits and so forth.”
So why hasn’t anyone shown that some or all of these can account for the temperature trend of the past few decades?
Regarding the effect of ozone on the Antarctic, there was a study published in the “Geophysical Research Letter” on April 26. Scientific American published a summary in their July 2008 edition. It mentions a computer model by Judith Perlwitz at the University of Colorado. Apparently more ozone would cause the lower stratosphere to absorb more ultraviolet light and warm up. A warmer stratosphere would in turn affect air circulation patterns that currently keep cold air trapped over the continent. With the cold air no longer trapped, the Antarctic would warm up.
Jeff Alberts: “Would that be the incredibly long 30 year trend?”
Whether or not 30 years is an “incredibly” long time is a matter of perspective. For a 10 year-old, 30 years is probably a very long time, for a 60 year-old, not so much. In climate science, 30 years is the accepted trend period, partly I think for historical reasons, but the length of time also makes allowance for anomalies arising from short-term fluctuations in weather and other events such as volcanoes.
However, I wouldn’t call 30 years an incredibly long time in regard to climate trends, so I’m not sure what your point is here, unless you are arguing that a shorter period is preferable.
“[Grant money]’s power DOES, however, extend to influencing how people perceive climate. Hence propaganda.”
If grant money is corrupting in this case, then it is also potentially corrupting in all cases. This would place a cloud over all science, since it must be funded in one way or another. I think it’s highly unlikely that all science has been corrupted by grant money, and since science must be funded some way, the defence against corruption is accountability.
Joel Shore:
Your cogency is not proportional to the number of your postings: quality is more important than quantity.
My statements are my own unless I provide a reference. I was citing nobody when I made my (accurate) comparison of AGW with eugenics. (I could expand on the comparison because there are several more similarities).
Your responses to my contributions to this forum are unfortunate.
When I have stated obvious truth that you cannot dispute then you put words in my mouth that I would not utter and then attack your invention as though I had said it. For example, when I pointed out the evolutionary theory and AGW are fundamentally different because AGW is a postulate that has yet to be observed in the real world but evolutionary theory is based on – and supported by empirical observation – you respond by saying to me “Basically, your argument boils down to saying …”.
You make unjustified and untrue ad homimem attacks on excellent scientists whose work provides doubt to AGW although their work has often been challenged but never faulted: e.g. you say
“I have never argued against people like Lindzen and Christy and Spencer continuing to do their work and attempting to get it published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, even if their work does seem to become increasingly sloppy and desperate.”
(I suppose their work as IPCC Lead Authors was not “sloppy and desperate”.)
But you excuse those (e.g. Mann, Bradley & Hughes) whose work has been – at best – “sloppy and desperate” because their discredited work once seemed to support AGW.
You make assertions that are the complete opposite of the truth: e.g.
You say of Lindzen and Christy;
“It is a sure sign that one side has lost the argument in the scientific journals when they instead try to move the scientific debate out into the public sphere where they can more easily bamboozle people with their pseudoscientific arguments. ”
But, in the real world AGW-sceptics question with science, while AGW-advocates attempt to “bamboozle people with their pseudoscientific arguments”: e.g. Hansen’s recent assertion that by AGW, ‘We are going to destroy the creation’
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/sep/23/nasa_climate_expert_warns_dire_consequences_global/
You make trivial web searches to trawl for anything that seems to support your stance then report your findings here as though they refuted the facts: e.g. in answer to my pointing out that the Russian Academy of Sciences refuses to accept AGW, you wrote to me
“Here, you are just flat out wrong. The Russian Academy of Sciences has signed onto the statement by the academies of the G8+5 nations on climate change.”
No. The then President of that Academy signed it, he was disciplined by the Executive of that Academy for signing it, and soon after that he left office.
I have made my contributions to this forum. Others can assess those contributions for themselves. And I am willing to discuss sensible and reasonable dispute of those contributions with anybody.
But I am not willing to waste my time continuing to answer your many postings whatever ad hominems, untruths, smears and distortions they contain.
Richard
I haven’t been following all the back and forth, but could we reel it in a bit? Please? ~ charles the moderator.
Having read Smokeys comments on Dr Meier I think he would be well advised to either produce his/her own scientific paper as a contra, or else simply just go to other sources for arctic data. I would imagine, from Smokey’s responses, the latter would be far easier than the former, but if he/she does do a paper the words “con artist” are probably not advisable in it.
In fact Smokey, your libel and defamation of Dr Meier is pretty despeicable and says more about you than it does about him
Regards
Andy
could we reel it in a bit? Please? ~ charles the moderator.
Alas, this is what I was anticipating. I cannot blame Dr Meier if he refuses to revisit this thread, or reply to any more questions.
The earlier discussion was focussed on a particularly interesting phenomenon – why, when the recent few years seem to show a global fall in temperatures, have there been two exceptionally large summer melt-backs in the Arctic?
I had hoped for some detailed responses to that. Instead what we got were assertions such as ‘because creationists attack evolutionary ‘concensus’, AGW sceptics must have a similar lack of scientific data for their beliefs’. I do not mind open-ended discussions of this type, but this thread is surely not the place for them.
May I encourage the moderator to be much more robust in diverting off-topic threads?
Charles the Moderator:
What is going on here?
I posted a scientific question that I suggested could be put to Dr Meir as follow-up to one of his (above) answers. A fact in my question was disputed and I politely answered that.
It was asserted that AGW could not be refuted so I pointed to my own refutation of it. This obtained two responses one of which wrongly accused me of posting a ‘straw man’. I politely answered those responses.
It was repeatedly asserted that E&E does not conduct peer review and – being on the Editorial Board of that journal – I corrected the matter and gave a brief explanation of E&E’s peer review process. Two persons responded to this with severe personal smears of me (and of the journal) that I ignored but somebody (whom I do not know) objected to the smears of me.
Several people questioned the nature of ‘climate’ and expressed the (common) confusion of ‘climate’ with the ‘standard period of climate’. I attempted to help by quoting (with reference) the IPCC definition of ‘climate’, and I explained how that definition is used by the IPCC with examples. In a subsequent posting somebody completely distorted my explanation and attributed the distortion to me, but I ignored that.
In attempt to close out debate some contributors presented the ‘appeal to authority fallacy’ and compared AGW-sceptics to creationists. I explained why this was wrong. One response to this was a simple attempt to demean (i.e. not discuss) my explanation and I asked if my understanding of that response is wrong. Another person sent a series of defamatory and inaccurate responses to my explanation.
Calmly and with evidence, I pointed out the errors in those defamatory and inaccurate responses. And I said that although I am willing to discuss serious disputes of my statements I am not willing to continue the so-called debate with the author of those defamatory and inaccurate responses.
You have responded to that saying:
“I haven’t been following all the back and forth, but could we reel it in a bit? Please?”
So, the moderator of this forum made no comment when people on this forum misrepresented what I have said, smeared and defamed me personally, and impugned the work and integrity of other named scientists.
But I was immediately asked to “reel it in a bit”when I pointed out that some of these things are incorrect and that I find them unacceptable.
I object.
Richard
Reply: I have reviewed the comments up to the point of Charles request and I believe that Charles was addressing everyone involved. – Anne
Reply: Exactly. I made it clear that I had not followed everything, but didn’t like the tone I got from a cursory examination. No one specifically was singled out. As a matter of procedure, if I am singling out a poster, the reply would be made inline and not as a separate comment. I do apologize if you felt this was directed at you Mr. Courtney ~ charles the moderator.
Dodgy Geezer says:
You may have missed my post of 23/09/2008 (06:42:46) where I gave a simple analogy that helps to explain it. To summarize the point, it takes a while for the ice to equilibrate with the current warming of the atmosphere. Hence, even if there is not warming for a few years because of natural variability, one would still expect a general trend toward the ice continuing to melt (although there will also obviously be variability from year to year…i.e., it will not be monotonic).
In general, people at this site seem to be fixated on short-term fluctuations rather than long-term trends.
Well, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a critical threshhold, although it could be. It could be simply that it will continue to melt for a while until it catches up with the current warmth
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that you are correct — that any melting in the Arctic is a lagging indicator of past warming. Well, there is no dispute that there was warming in the past. It follows that any melting in the Arctic is not new evidence of anything.
I realize that they are a lot of comments here, and that it is difficult to sort through all of them, so I will summarize a few key concepts here.
1. Dr. Meier is currently working on a second set of questions, based on comments here.
2. He is not avoiding the forum.
3. He has, and continues to, put a huge amount of his personal time into this effort – which he is under no obligation to do.
4. His offer to take this on is perhaps unique.
5. He knows a lot more detail about what is going on day to day in the Arctic than most of the rest of us.
Individuals may or may not agree with his view of the future of the Arctic, but please express your opinion in a scientific, non-personal manner. We don’t want to mimic the bad behavior which goes on at some well known global warming advocacy sites.
I haven’t been following all the back and forth, but could we reel it in a bit? Please? ~ charles the moderator.
Well you let me and Dr Meier be called liars on this site without doing anything about it, I assure you that Steve McIntyre wouldn’t allow that on CA, perhaps you should ‘follow all the back and forth’?
A few interesting features of this graph.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
1. Freeze-up started much earlier this year than in the other years.
2. 2008 extent is now closer to 2005 than it is to 2007.
3. On the date of the 2007 minimum (tomorrow,) 2008 extent will be about 15% greater than 2007.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
“At NSIDC we stick to the science” One has to wonder if he actually believes his own spin. “Such wide-ranging change cannot be explained through natural processes. There is a clear human fingerprint, through greenhouse gas emissions, on the changing climate of the Arctic.” That is about as far removed from science as one can get.
phil,
Apparently what goes around, comes around. You might want to moderate your own posts.
Dodgy Geezer (16:50:23)
The lack of a comprehensive, competing hypothesis to challenge AGW is a pretty big problem. If some scientists built a countering hypothesis tying in the current stand alone challenges solar and orbital variations , mistakes in data, etc, I believe it would help to advancing understanding by encouraging two things.
1.) To build a competing hypothesis an attempted explanation of the cause of current conditions and what seems to be coming will have to be attempted.
2.) The creators of the competing hypothesis will have to focus on the big picture too instead of attacking data sets (not that data sets shouldn’t be recollected or reevaluated) or attacking interpretations or parts of interpretations.
This approach will have to include the bigger picture.
I submit, that if AGW is as wrong as is being claimed, that individuals with the specific scientific knowledge can do this creating a hypothesis that can compete enmass with AGW. That would be a beautiful thing.
“I sometimes think that AGW supporters believe that all sceptics deny everything.”
I agree and it’s not helpful. To counter that I think that those offering alternate interpretations of data should emphatically LEAD with an acknowlegement of things that are happening AND areas of agreement FIRST then advance alternate interpretations without attack language.
Such an approach to disputing AGW would be better than what we have now and could result in AGW modification, perhaps even drastically becaue the nature of the converasation would change.
Undoubtedly, the climate is staggeringly complex and only a fool would attempt to state definitively how it works. That said, however, we understand how parts of it work and are building on that daily it seems. I agree that every element of proposed AGW should be open to challenge. As you noted, that even with evidence, as Dr. Marshall’s case shows, it can be difficult to challenge ideas that have become entrenched. Few will argue against verifiable evidence. When evidence can be independently verified disputes get settled and understanding advances.
At some point the preponderance of the evidence will argue convingly one way or the other. Not all will come along, but that may be a good thing.
Dill Weed
Smokey says:
I am not sure what you are proposing here. Are you saying that the only science that can be trusted is that done by amateur scientists because anyone doing science for a living has a vested interest in a particular outcome?
If you can’t understand the difference between one media article saying that climate scientists are saying something and the actual unfiltered statements of these scientists made through the respected organizations like the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and as expressed through the peer-reviewed literature, then I can’t help you.
This is a red herring in so many ways it is difficult to keep count of them all but I will try to hit the highlights:
(1) Mann did not hide data or methodologies. He disclosed everything that he was required to, as the NSF has clearly stated in response to McIntyre’s demand that Mann give them his computer code. The NSF has clearly determined that a scientist’s computer code is their own intellectual property and under the rules of NSF funding, there is absolutely no requirement that they give it to whoever asks. And, in my ~30 years of doing science, I have never been asked for my computer codes on which the papers that I have published have been based (and, in fact, in some cases it is not even my property to give to anyone else as it is the property of my employer).
(2) Mann’s intellectual property rights not withstanding, he eventually did decide to release the code he used in that original paper. For his latest paper that was just published, it appears that all of the code and data are available here http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/ (to a degree which is frankly very unusual at least in the fields that I have worked in). So, at this point, I am rather confused as to what you are complaining about.
Methane Hydrates being released in Arctic
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html