Real Climate Permits The Continued Presentation Of Misinformation Part II
There are comments on the Real Climate weblog More bubkes regarding why I did not comment further on Arctic sea ice trends. This is because I weblogged on it in June in my post
A Comment On A 1999 Paper “Global Warming And Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent By Vinnikov Et Al
I concluded that weblog with the text
“Until later in 2007, the sea ice areal extent continued to decrease in a manner which, at least visually, is consistent with the Vinnikov et al 1999 predictions (although the actual values of areal coverage differ substantially between the observations and the predictions, perhaps as a result of their formulation to compute areal coverage).
However, since 2006, the reduction has stopped and even reversed. Perhaps this is a short term event and the reduction of sea ice extent will resume. Nonetheless, the reason for the turn around, even if short term, needs an explanation. Moreover, this data provides a valuable climate metric to assess whether the multi-decadal global models do have predictive skill as concluded in the Vinnikov et al 2009 paper.”
It should be recognized that the Vinnikov et al plots are not at the time of the September minumum. I agree completely that the minumum in sea ice coverage in the last few years has been at record low levels, and, currently, the sea ice is melting at a rate that is greater than average (see).
I also want to repeat what I wrote in my July 2 2009 weblog Response By Roger A. Pielke Sr. To The Real Climate Weblog “More Bubkes”
By overstating what is actually occurring within the climate system (which they clearly did in their original weblog and perpetuated in their second weblog), they provide fodder for those who conclude that the human intervention in the climate system is minimal. To emphasize my view, it is summarized in my weblogs
Summary Of Roger A. Pielke Sr’s View Of Climate Science
Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change
Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On Adaptation and Mitigation
A blog post in The Guardian stroking Gavin:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jul/06/gavin-schmidt-climate-change
Particularly amusing within:
“And here’s Schimdt on the “noise” created by the climate change debate, a subject he’s touched on before on the Guardian:
“In unmoderated forums about climate change, it just devolves immediately into, “you’re a Nazi, no you’re a fascist,” blah, blah, blah. Any semblance of an idea that you could actually talk about what aerosols do to the hydrological cycle without it devolving into name calling seems to be fantasy. It is very tiresome.””
Funny, if it wasn’t for the word “unmoderated” one would think he was talking about his own website. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the number of ad hominems that occur on Real Climate versus the number of ad hominems that occur on Watts Up With That during any given day, week or month. Based on my rare visits to Real Climate it seems to me that Gavin condones and sometimes participates in name calling and personal attacks, which, based on the Gavin’s statement above, makes him a hypocrite. And no Gavin, this is not a personal attack, it is just a statement of fact.
“I find it amusing that you refer to real researchers as “pseudo scientist”, while this supposedly scientific blog contains close to nothing scientific. Self deception seems to be widespread around here:)”
I see you haven’t read very much on here….
Roger Pielke seems to be far more interested in uncovering the truth than supporting any particular agenda.
Yes, he questions that which supports his basic positions as carefully as that which disputes them.
Pamela-what happened to Summer? in NE Oregon? got up to fall like winds and cool temps.
But remember, it’s one of the top ten warmest Falls we’ve ever had during Summer.
I have my “computer metric”. During summer, the AC power drain on the building I live in causes all sorts of problems booting my machine. This Summer I’ve had fewer problems in this regard than in recent years.
One of the more interesting facts that seems to get lost RC is the total of polar sea ice (Arctic & Antarctic) seems relatively constant. Arctic extent goes down, Antarctic go up. When discussed at RC about why the Antarctic (with much greater volume) is close to record highs, the answer, at RC, is the continental ice sheet is getting smaller, hence the oceans are rising. So if the surrounding ocean is generating ice, (it takes a lot of “cold” to make ice), why would the continent, in the center, be losing ice?
Must be all those scientists breathing down there.
evanmjones (08:01:30) :
‘But remember, it’s one of the top ten warmest Falls we’ve ever had during Summer.’
Too funny!
OK. Now THAT”S what I call perfect timing!!!!!! (see the new WUWT post “Gore / Nazi”)
Anthony alluded to a good point when asked recently why he even bothers responding to RC? He answered because they get a lot of press. There is another important reason for doing it. WUWT has a very substantial readership which continues to grow and those readers talk to their friends around the water cooler and it is sites like these that provide ballanced rebuttals, in many cases in laymen terms, for them to inject in to their discussions.
Another point that has been discussed here is the decline in readership at RC. I’m speculating but I think there are RC readers of this site who are not as comfortable as they were when first reading articles at RC after seeing the counter arguments here.
It is also worth considering that as WUWT becomes more and more successful and far reaching that RC can no longer ignore the impact it is having which may reach a critical point with the release of the surfacestation.org paper. That is going to be a very interesting time and could be a real paradigm shifter. Thanks again to all who made it possible.
evanmjones (07:37:13) : When you (or climate scientists, if you aren’t one) consider the albedo of polar ice, do you mean the measured albedo of ice in the lab or do you take into account the shallow grazing angle of sunlight on polar ice? Seems like a lot more sunlight would bounce off polar ice no matter what condition the ice is in.
evanmjones (07:37:13) : Also, the watts/meter3 is a lot less, so it makes less difference anyway.
Oops! watts/meter^2 not ^3
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/07/populartechnologynet-on-realclimateorg.html
July 7, 2009
PopularTechnology.net on RealClimate.org
“Essentially the site [RealClimate.org] exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post “rebuttals” to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn’t matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys “ammunition” to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley’s job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia.” “The truth about RealClimate.org”
No, I am not a climate scientist.
Seems like a lot more sunlight would bounce off polar ice no matter what condition the ice is in.
Reduction of area would nonetheless reduce albedo. It’s part of the dreaded positive feedback equation. (And, no, I’m not worried about it.)
My point was merely that area “matters” more than volume.
evanmjones (14:42:55) :
I do see your point.
The polar ice is absorbing so little heat even at full extent, I doubt it is significant compared to heat absorbed elsewhere on our quickly withering planet.
Sonicfrog (10:29:16) :
“OK. Now THAT”S what I call perfect timing!!!!!! (see the new WUWT post “Gore / Nazi”)”
I concur that the timing is quite interesting, but it’s The Times that titled their article, “Al Gore likens fight against climate change to battle with Nazis” and Gore who apparently invoked some reference to Nazis, such that Times led their article with it. Add to this the Warmingists use of the obviously loaded term “denier” to describe anyone who is skeptical of their flimsy global warming narrative and it raises the question, what’s going on within the Warmingist’s meme such that Nazi references have become a commonly used communication tool/persuasive device?
Ron de Haan (13:05:45) :
“The truth about RealClimate.org”
From what little of this blog I have read, I tend to agree. But it goes deeper still I suspect. We here, engage in a similar approach. It is more like a propaganda war. Set in cyber space. Ian Plimer’s book appears to set the stage well:
Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis that humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, skeptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance.
It is disappointing to think that this is what humanity has to look forward to. A future populated by the most ancient and narrowed consciousness. As if to say, “Look forward, children. The Dark Ages lie ahead, still.” It makes one wonder; where is the wisdom? Where is the light?
If the ice all melts nothing to worry about anyway,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17436-warming-arctic-could-teem-with-life-by-2030.html