This might be a bit overzealous per Morano’s unique writing style, but compared to some of the stuff we’ve seen from warmists, pretty mild. Lots of useful links and notes – Anthony
By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Below is the Introduction to the report. Full report is available here. (PDF)
INTRODUCTION:
Many of the proponents of man-made global warming are now claiming that climate change is worse than they predicted. According to an October 18, 2011 Daily Climate article, global warming activists claim that the “evidence builds that scientists underplay climate impacts” and “if anything, global climate disruption is likely to be significantly worse than has been suggested.”
But this exclusive Climate Depot exhaustive A-Z Climate Reality Check report on the scientific reality of the failure of man-made global warming shatters any such illusions that the climate is “worse than we thought.” As the real world evidence mounts that global warming claims are failing, the climate activists have ramped up predictions of future climate change impacts to declare that it “worse than we thought.” But a prediction or projection of 50-100 years into the future is not “evidence.” Recent scientific data and developments reveal that Mother Nature is playing a cruel joke on the promoters of man-made climate fears.
The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim — from A-Z — the claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing, and in many instances the claims are moving in the opposite direction. The global warming movement is suffering the scientific death of a thousand cuts. This Climate Depot special report categorizes and indexes the full range of climate developments in a handy A-Z reference guide. The A-Z report includes key facts, peer-reviewed studies and the latest data and developments with links for further reading, on an exhaustive range of man-made global warming claims.
The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers and the ice is expanding, the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007, polar bears are thriving, sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping, Cholera and Malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions, Mount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover, global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more and many scientists are predicting global cooling is ahead, deaths due to extreme weather are radically declining, global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows, the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined, the oceans are missing their predicted heat content, big tornados have dramatically declined since the 1970s, droughts are not historically unusual nor caused by mankind, there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather, scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement, the UN IPCC has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists, former Vice President Al Gore is now under siege by his fellow global warming activists for attempting to link every bad weather event to man-made global warming and scientists from around the world continue to dissent from man-made climate fears at a rapid pace.
Proponents of anthropogenic climate change have been reduced to making outlandish claims of a mythical 97% or 98% consensus. See: Global Warming: A ‘98% Consensus Of Nothing’: ‘Only shameless activists or statistically ignorant claim that survey of 77 anonymous scientists’ is proof of 98% ‘consensus’. Once esteemed science groups like the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have now corrupted and have used taxpayer money to lobby for the passage of climate bills. See: Ralph Cicerone’s Shame: NAS Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group — ‘political appointees heading politicized scientific institutions that are virtually 100% dependent on gov’t funding’ & NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study is used to lobby for global warming bill & MIT’s Richard Lindzen: ‘Cicerone of NAS is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov’t wants carbon control, that is the answer that the NAS will provide’
Movement ‘was bound to fail’
A movement that had Al Gore – one of the most divisive political figures – as the face of the movement, was bound to fail. A movement that utilized the scandal ridden United Nations – which is massively distrusted by the American people – as the repository of science, was doomed to fail. Gore and the UN IPCC are now reduced to pointing to every storm, flood, hurricane or tornado as proof of man-made global warming. The UN has been reduced to blaming man-made global warming for prostitution. See: Climate Astrology — ‘It Has Been Foretold’ of Extreme Weather: ‘UN IPCC science has a status similar to interpretations of Nostradamus and the Mayan calendars’ & Climate Astrology borrows from the past: ‘Before That Witch Moved Into The Neighborhood, We Never Had Bad Weather Or Disease’
But a scientific moment of clarity is now prevailing: The UN and the U.S. Congress do not have the power to legislate, tax or regulate the weather. See: Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ‘The idea that Congress can stop climate change is just hilarious’ – Warns of ‘climate change cult’ – July 8, 2009 – Prominent scientists continue to challenge the alleged “consensus.” See: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Dr. Ivar Giaever Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming
‘Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables’
The idea that CO2, a trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans exhale form their mouth, is the main climate driver is now being challenged by peer-reviewed studies, data and scientists from around the globe. It is not simply, the sun or CO2 when looking at global temperatures, it is the Sun, volcanoes, tilt of the Earth’s axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, albedo, atmospheric dust, Atmospheric Circulation, cosmic rays, particulates like Carbon Soot, forests and land use, etc. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, not just CO2.
Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London explained the crux of the entire global warming debate when he rebutted the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver.
“As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets,” Stott wrote.
Even the global warming activists at RealClimate.org admitted to this key climate reality in a September 20, 2008 article. “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors,” RealClimate.org explained.
The global warming movement continues to lose scientists, many formerly with the UN IPCC. See: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
The future does not look bright for global warming activists as more scandals continue to rock the movement. See: Climate Depot’s Exclusive Round Up of Climategate 2.0 – Read about the most comprehensive report on the latest global warming scandal – Even warmists are lamenting that Climate 2.o may be ‘devastating’: ‘These [emails] sound worse than I thought at first – their impact will be devastating’
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has observed that “Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears — but educated people are very vulnerable.”
A-Z Climate Reality Check (Editor’s Note: This A-Z report will be regularly updated and will serve as a handy reference guide to man-made global warming claims.)
Full PDF report is available here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Ammonite says:
December 9, 2011 at 12:57 am
Measuring from El-Nino peaks to La-Nina troughs (or vice-versa) does not give an adequate expectation for future behaviour.”
I agree that this is comparing apples and oranges to some extent. But the flatness of the last 14 yeas cannot be dismissed either. See Bob B’s post above. This lull fits perfectly with the 60 year long rough sine wave over the last 130 years. From his post, see http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
Naidoo, top dog at Greenpeace, has been “de-badged” at COP 17 in Durban. I presume this is like being thrown out of the proceedings and he is very cross according to e-tv. Seems to be about organizing some protest resulting in unruly behavior.
Bob B, Vince, Werner: The ocean. Werner, the vast majority of any accumulating energy must go there. The air doesn’t heat up +3C (say) but the ocean stays at zero. Nor does the air heat +3C and then dump its negligible content into the ocean. The systems are coupled and the ocean takes a long time to heat.
According to AGW ocean heat content (OHC) should be rising. So why has OHC seemingly stalled in the recent decade under various estimates/measurements? Measurement suffers from sampling issues (little to no measurement of the deep ocean for example), accuracy issues and noise. There are always wiggles in the data. The question then becomes, how long must OHC “stall” to bring its longer term trend into question? In general, ~10 years is too short to assess climate trends. Extrapolating from a relatively short basis does not make for sound future predictions. The jury is still out on this one.
Bob B, if climate sensitivity is of the order of 1C as you believe, OHC must still continue to rise with rising CO2. Falling OHC is just as much a problem (in principle) for 1C as 3C.
Werner, to the extent that climate cycles exist they do not negate the effect of rising GHG but would be superimposed over it. (Note that this is the case for the solar cycle according to Foster, Rahmstorf.)
Vince, you are measuring to the bottom of a La Nina year for your warming assessment. Please note that 2011 will be the warmest La Nina on record. What does this imply when the next decent sized El Nino rolls around?
Hi all. I have not had a response to my previous post (it was only yesterday so thats perfectly understandable, we’re all busy people with bust lives etc). I have had to do a fair bit of scouring around but have managed to find an up-to-date chart on arctic sea ice volume which you can see at this link:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
On re-reading the intro to Marc Morano’s article I can see he is talking just about arctic sea ice extent and I had not read it carefully enough first time. Obviously I had a good look at the links I was kindly given that show the patterns of arctic sea ice area. There has cetainly been some recovery but, as I think someone else has posted, saying it has ‘rebounded’ might be a slight exaggeration, but i am not too troubled by this.
What I am more concerned with is that Marc Moranos conclusion does not follow from his premise when he says that ‘the real world evidence mounts that global warming claims are failing’ in regards to his claim about arctic ice
Surely to demonstrate that there has been no warming, you need to show that the overall amount of ice (i.e. volume) has increased, or at least not decreased as opposed to just looking at area covered. He has not done this and the chart I found shows a substantial loss of ice over the period 2007 to present, which seems to back the idea that warming has/is taking place.
Anyway, I would love to hear other others opinions on this. Thanks.
Ammonite–you didn’t respond to the long time natural warming recovery from the ice ages? And the cherry picking little heating on top of that?
Regardless Ocean heat content is DECREASING!
So it all may be climate noise—move along nothing to worry about
“Ammonite says:
December 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Werner, to the extent that climate cycles exist they do not negate the effect of rising GHG but would be superimposed over it.”
Hi. Check out the following again.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
We have a sine wave that has a period of 60 years with peaks at 1880, 1940 and 2000. And the line through the sine wave is a steadily rising line. Presumably, from 1880 to 1940, we were coming out of the LIA which explains that part of the rise. But the rise from 1940 to 2000 is just as steep. Did this have a different cause or is it just a continuation for coming out of the LIA? In my opinion, if the CO2 really started to kick in after 1945, that line should be curving upwards, but it isn’t. You may hypothesize that the the first 60 years of the straight line could be due to LIA and the last 60 years due to CO2. But if that were the case, why the stall over the last 13 years? You could argue that 13 years is too small to draw any conclusions. Perhaps. But it is nothing to sneeze at either. So before spending billions on carbon capture and the like, I think we should wait a few years to be sure. In the meantime, there are much more urgent concerns in this world that need attention now.
JonBo, what makes you think this
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
hasn’t happened 75-100yrs ago when there weren’t satellites to measure sea ice extent and volume?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Bob B says: December 9, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Ammonite–you didn’t respond to the long time natural warming recovery from the ice ages? And the cherry picking little heating on top of that? Regardless Ocean heat content is DECREASING!
So it all may be climate noise—move along nothing to worry about
Bob B, I indicated up front that I did not wish to conjecture on every possible cause of temperature rise, so I’ll take a pass for now on ice age recovery. Inclusion of the entire satellite record is hardly cherry picking! It is all the data available. It would be lovely to have more, but that’s all she wrote to date. As stated before, the temperature rise in the Foster, Rahmstorf series is statistically significant, hardly suggestive of noise.
Werner Brozek says: December 9, 2011 at 3:47 pm
…But if that were the case, why the stall over the last 13 years? You could argue that 13 years is too small to draw any conclusions.
Hi Werner. My last post in this thread. As stated before, measuring from an El Nino peak to La Nina trough (last 13 years) is an extremely poor predictor of future behaviour. I have the distinct impression that you have not read the RealClimate link posted above or the Foster, Rahmstorf paper. Temperature continues to rise and the rise is statistically significant when known causes of short term variability are stripped out. With all variability left in, yes, short run time frames of the order of 10 years or so are insufficient to draw definitive conclusions.
“Ammonite says:
December 9, 2011 at 7:39 pm
…measuring from an El Nino peak to La Nina trough (last 13 years) is an extremely poor predictor of future behaviour.”
And yet you are implying, that measuring from La Nina “low” to El Nino “high” is an extremely good predictor of future behaviour? And the rise is all man made, because “known causes of short term variability are stripped out”?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
And from climategate about RC:
” Mann wrote:
the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing (sic) the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.”
Steve, my aging eyes misread, and saw “the Feeb”. Oops. Then I thought, “Wait a minute …”
;D 🙂
Ammonite,
“As stated before, the temperature rise in the Foster, Rahmstorf series is statistically significant, hardly suggestive of noise.”
Look at Fakasofu again. The time period you quote is a tiny cherry picked period and it does appear on top of a long term trend–and maybe from to 120yr AMO-PDO cycles.–did you actually look at it?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
Yet you want to close your eyes and say Na Na Na–it’s CO2–this is exactly why I get pissed at your foolishness and “Climate Scientists” You have no PROOF—only conjecture and there should be consequnces to the “TEAM’. Hell just look at the time and money wasted by the gaggle at Durban.
“Ammonite says:
Under Foster, Rahmstorf 2011 the underlying trend is calculated to be ~0.16C/decade.”
See Phil Jones interview at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Note the answer to question A: A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
So it seems as if “Foster, Rahmstorf 2011” are agreeing with Phil Jones. So the question is: Since 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940 had nothing to do with CO2, why should the conclusions of “Foster, Rahmstorf 2011” have anything to do with CO2? Their slope was no higher, even with all their adjustments.
Bob B:
In answer to your question, I don’t. As I indicated in my original post I have only started looking at this whole debate and have started by checking out the validity of Marc Moranos claims, and Polar ice was the first issue he raised in a very strongly worded introduction.
You make a perfectly valid point, but I am trying to be as methodical about this as I can be and taking things one step at a time. I can only repeat my first point that Moranos claim is not supported by the evidence he presents in his argument.
You may well be right in what you imply, I really don’t know, but I have noticed there is a lot of talk by skeptics about sea ice loss/gain. If, as you suggest, it does not make any difference if there is a big loss in arctic ice on the grounds that it may have happened before for all we know, then why concentrate on it as an issue.
Also I am a bit puzzled in that, I have already said, when looking at the actual amount of sea ice loss or gain we have to look at volume. The first place I checked was the reference page on this site where I found several charts showing sea ice extent but none showing volume. I find this a very strange omission considering its importance.
Anyhow, as I said, you still raise a perfectly valid issue and I now intend to follow your link. Many thanks.
JonBo says:
December 10, 2011 at 8:38 am
[….]
I can only repeat my first point that Moranos claim is not supported by the evidence he presents in his argument. [….]
Morano’s comment was principally a response to the Alarmist claims, and those claims are generally speaking about the measurements of sea ice extent. Although the Alarmist arguments sometimes include claims about ice volume, such claims are based upon sea ice extent and subjective guesses about what they beleive a model parameterization adjustment should be to produce a desired result. Currently, there are no objectively quantitative ice volume measurements with anthing remotely close to the necessary temporal and spatial coverages. Consequently, Morano and anyone else can only make objective observations about sea ice extent. As Morano has noted, sea ice extent has been on the rebound, meaning increasing to levels above the minimums of 2007, in the Arctic. Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has on balance been increasing even while Arctic sea ice had been decreasing. Total planetary sea ice was stable or increasing in recent decades during and despite the planetary warming of the past century. So, it can only be wondered how you would conclude Moran’s comment could be incorrect.
The sea ice extent is an issue, because the Alarmists make it a political and economic issue justifying the censorship and dismissal from employment of scientific and public critics, the transfer of sovereignty to unelected representatives openly avowed to creating a One World Government under their own leadership, with the melting ice as the reason for these emergency measures to be taken without public knowledge or debate.
“if there is a big loss in arctic ice on the grounds that it may have happened before for all we know” is a misrepresentation of the situaton. We know for an indisputable fact that the Arctic has experienced a big loss of ice before beyond any possible doubt. In fact, you have the situation exactly backwards and upside down.
The normal condition of the Arctic is to be free of any ice cap. The normal conditon of the Arctic throughout the Earth’s past is to be ice free. There have been only a very limited number of relatively brief periods of time when the Earth has experienced an ice age. Of those very few ice ages, only a couple or perhaps few of them resulted in an icecap on the Arctic. The current ice age is one of those exceedingly rare occasions when an icecap existed in the Arctic. During the 20-30 million year period of the current ice age, the Arctic ice cap has been present on and off again for only a few million years, waxing and waning to great extents between glacial and inter-glacial periods in the exceptional periods when the ice cap did exist.
Even during the current and ongoing inter-glacial priod of the latest 10,000 years or longer, the Arctic ice cap has been waxing and waning with an overall decline from the last maximum glacial extent. It should always be remembered that the last maximum glacial extent of the Arctic icecap is the most extensive experienced by the Earth in about the last 2.2 billion years, long before terrestrial lifeforms colonized and inhabited the continents. In other words, the Earth has been warming up in previous inter-glacial periods and in this inter-glacial period relative to one of the coldest ice age periods experienced in the last half of its entire ~4.6 billion year existence. During these inter-glacial periods there have been many episodes of warming which melted enough Arctic sea ice to result in the formation of shoreline deposits indicative of open sea water along the northern coasts of Greenland. The Dorset Culture maintained extensive communities in Northern Greenland and Eastern Greenland on and off again through the waxing and waning of climate conditions until the recent Little Ice Age. Even during centuries, we have reports from mariners indicating great changes in sea ice extent in the Arctic.
There can be no doubt, the Arctic sea ice extent of the overall past has normally been zero and extraordinarily extended southwrds into the temperate latitudes of North America and Eurasia. We also know that the Arctic sea ice extent has been less than the present during the past 2,000 years and likely similar to the present within the past century or earlier. All of these events occurred before the late 20th Century and early 21st Century carbon dioxide emissions.
You have to ask yourself how anyone can display an OBJECTIVE quantitative measurement of Arctic ice volume when no such empirical measurements of the Arctic have ever been made in the necessary temporal and spatial series? A critic can discuss, analyze, and debate the SUBJECTIVE guesstimates resulting from conjectural parameterizations in the conjectural models used by Alarmists, but you cannot fault someone when they choose not to misrepresent conjectural model results as actual empirical observations of real conditions.
Also, consider the implications of the conjectural ice volume models when compared to what we observed from empirical evidence of ice volumes during the current ice age. The sea levels were hundreds of feet/meters lower during the recent maximum glacial epochs, while the northern regions of the North American and Eurasian continents were overlaid with ice glacial ice sheets hundreds of feet/meters of ice extending southwards from the Arctic. These gargantuan volumes of ice were melted by natural events to cause the sea levels to rise. Consider the quantities of thermal energy required to cause the melting of such vast amounts of ice extent and volume. Then remember the Solar scientists advise us there has not been a change in TSI (total Solar Irradiance) during these freezing and unfreezing events that could explain such massive changes. Then compare the maximum and minimum ice volumes conjectured for the last century by the Alarmist conjectural modeling to the maximum and minimum ice volumes conjectured during the prior periods of this same ice age. Ask yourself how the thermal energies required for the Modern ice volume variability are outside the range of natural ice volume variability experienced in the absence of human influence? Then ask yourself how important the ice volume variance versus the ice extent variance is today when the ice extent is mostly confined to the relatively thin Arctic sea ice and the thicker Greenland continental ice? During the maximum ice volumes of the glacial epochs, most of the ice was laid upon the continents and not the Arctic seas. These proportions have radically switched now that most of the Arctic ice is sea ice instead of continental ice sheets. The thermal energies required for changes of volume and extent are likewise altered. How important then is the current ice volume on the seas relative to their ice extent? Which measure is the greater indicator of thermal energies under Modern circumstances, in the absence of reliable and comprehensive quantitative Arctic ice volume measurements?
The Antarctic ice extent and ice volume is far greater than that of the Arctic. Why place such an emphasis upon the variations of the Arctic while disregarding the lack of such changes in the far more influential Antarctic?
D. Patterson
OK, You have made a lot of assertions without references or links (I’m not having a go here, it just means I have to put some effort into checking your claims, it’s not a problem)
*Currently, there are no objectively quantitative ice volume measurements with anthing remotely close to the necessary temporal and spatial coverages.
OK, I obviously need to look into that as a starting point
*The sea ice extent is an issue, because the Alarmists make it a political and economic issue etc .
In this statement you seem to imply that sea ice extent is the only indicator being used here. My understanding is that there are a number of factors that warmist scientists claim to have identified that suggest that the planet is warming and that this warming is due to increased CO2. An overall loss of ice would merely be an indicator that there is more heat in the system now than there has been for a while and that this must be the result of planetary warming. It does not nothing to support the assertion that this warming is due to increased CO2 as opposed to natural causes and natural cycles. The evidence that supports the assertion that CO2 is a significant comntributer to recent warming is apparently the so-called “fingerprints”.
Thats all i have time for right now
Many thanks
The sea ice caught in the gyre in the Arctic Sea is driven by winds and sea currents, and they vary considerably. The sea ice breaks and is driven upwards into pressure ridges. Consequently, ice thickness and volume is continuously changing and varying with the current, seasonal weather, and longer cyclical weather and climate. Monitoring ice thickness and volume is highly problematical, because each of the technologies capable of providing ice thickness measurements of wide areas each has serious limitations in the areas and accuracies for which they can provide measurements.
Satellites in space are limited in coverage by their orbital parameters. They typically leave a large are at the geographic North Pole unobserved, because their orbits do not allow observations of this region. They are also limited in their abilities to sense the ice thickness beyond a certain accuracy in those areas which they can make observations.
Aerial surveys can achieve greater accuracies and observe regions around the North Pole not observable by the satellites, but perpetual nightfall and budgetary limitations limit their potential usage to do so.
Submarines are limited in their temporal availability and their ability to make measurements in the littoral regions.
Even if recent technology solved all of these existing problems with accurate measurements and coverage in an instant, there would still be no past such time series with which to make the necessary comparisons. At best, researchers at present can only use the incomplete and less than required accuracies in the measurements to make refined estimates of what they think the measurements ought to be. Such subjective estimates can provide some guidance about the scope of such measurements, but they are too inaccurate and inappropriate to detect the subtle changes the Alarmists wish to attribute to anthropogenic influences, if there were such of any significance.
No, “sea ice extent is the only indicator being used here,” but it is the only metric which can be supported by Alarmists or Skeptics with any halfway reasonable degree of measurements. Even then, their are considerable inaccuracies in the ability to sense the ice extent margins. The ice volumes can only be roughly approximated at present and guessed at in the more distant decades with the very incomplete data available to anyone.
D. Patterson
*Currently, there are no objectively quantitative ice volume measurements with anthing remotely close to the necessary temporal and spatial coverages.
I have looked into this and it appears that you are wrong. It seems that there are a number of ways in which arctic sea ice volume is measured from ice thickness measuring buoys to US Navy submarines to aerial ice thickness measuring instrumentation packages to ships measuring the thicknesses on their recon cruises to orbiting satellites. Measurements are taken and updated on a monthly basis.
In the antarctic, measurements are taken by satellite:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
I am just wondering on what you based your assertion. Thanks.
That totally misrepresents what I have said. I DID NOT say there were no measurements by these methods. On the contrary, I listed those same methods. What I did say is that those measurments are limited in scope to less than the whole ice volumes by significant measures, the methods lack adequate accuracies, and the methods lack temporal coverage. Consequently, researchers use the limited data points to estimate and therefore are making educated guesses about what they think a full set of empirical data points might say if it were possible to collect the full set of datapoints. Since they cannot observe the full set of data points, they resort to using interpolations and extrapolations of the limited data in an effort to simulate a hypotheitical model of what they hope could be a reasonable representation of what reality should look like. Unfortunately, such estimates based on assumptions are typically inaccurate to greater or lesser degrees. Until we have better ways of collecting the necessary data, the reality remains to be revealed, and the accuracies of these estimates remain to be determined. For example:
Estimated data points are not real or actual data points. Estimates may be useful for some purposes, but they can be in significant error and are not reality.
To understand what has been said, try to find the following empiricaldata, not the interpolated or extrapolated data, for the period of ice volume flux representative of the period of greatest anthropogenic atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide.
With respect to submarines, let’s see the submarine upward sonar measurements of sea ice thickness for all of the littoral regions of the Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, and Queen Elizabeth Islands for the period 1945 to 2011.
With respect to satellites, let’s see the satellite measurements of sea ice thickness for all of the Arctic Sea ice north of 86 degress N. latitude for the period 1945 to 2011.
With respect to aerial surveys, let’s see the aerial survey measurements of sea ice thickness for all of the East Siberian Sea ice for the period 1945 to 2011.
Cryosat is one of the more promising research tools to come online, unfortunately it is quite useless for providing measurements the period prior to its deployment.
D. Patterson:
I will have been writing my 9 am posting as you submitted your 8.50 am posting which I did not see. Hence the apparent mis-representation and I apologise for the mix-up.
You are clearly well informed for which I give you full credit.
You obviously do not accept the data on the grounds that it is incomplete and therefore invalid and you have explained why this is the case. Yet this data is still being used in peer reviewed studies, one of which I provided a link to.
Can you provide me with any peer reviewed studies that demonstrate why this data should not be used to draw any meaningful conclusion from due to it’s inherent uncertainties?
Many thanks
JonBo says:
December 11, 2011 at 1:32 pm
[….]
You are clearly well informed for which I give you full credit.
You obviously do not accept the data on the grounds that it is incomplete and therefore invalid and you have explained why this is the case.
It is not a case in which I “do not accept the data on the grounds that it is incomplete and therefore invalid [….] “ Much of the data is acceptable as far as it goes. Other data is of dubious accuracy. Other data is downright irrational. It’s a mixed bag. Worst of all is the data which has not been observed and collected, accurate or not. It is the application of the existing and non-existent data to the formulation of alleged peer reviewed studies demonstrating poor and sometimes non-existent scientific discipline which is problematic for science and the social institutions reliant upon such works. Again, estimates and modeling can be useful tools in scientific research. The problem arises when some people attempt to mislead society into trusting so-called scientists who wrongly and improperly attempt to pass off and sell estimates as the same weight of evidence as real world data of adequate accuracies. This is when the peer reviewed research abuses privilege and veers off into the area in which it may be said that scientific fraud may be taking place. People attempting the similar kinds of misrepresentations of technical data in the financial markets have often ended up behind prison bars. In the realm of so-called climate science they are awarded a Nobel prize, chairmanships, and trips to exotic resorts for the next COP conference. Then it is left to the rest of us to try and provide a general explanation why it appears someone is misrepresenting the nature of the data for whatever purposes.
I’m not saying the “ data should not be used to draw any meaningful conclusion” at all. On the contrary, the data is quite useful when it is used within its inherent limitations. The problem occurs when the data is used in circumstances that are inappropriate. An example of an inappropriate use of data is marine navigation or aerial navigation. Maps and charts in the past were not always accurate in their marine depths and terrestrial elevations. The mapmakers often provided some cautions about the potential for data errors in the published work and the need to not rely on the data for some critical purposes. Ships captain’s who have failed to heed those warnings have been known to run their ships aground, and aerial pilots have perished along with their hapless passengers when they discovered rocks in clouds which the data misled them itno believing had no rocks.
So it is with many other types of measurement data. When I conducted a rawindsonde or a piball atmospheric sounding, there was a prescribed method by which the observations had to be made and reported. The methods were devised to capture data meant to be used for only certain purposes. If, however, some so-called scientists came along at a later date and attempted to use the observations I reported, they could very well come to completely wrong conclusions. Upper level winds in more active convective sky conditons would push the balloons in opposite directions between reported observation intervals. Consequently, the data was quite useful for their intended purposes, but would be totally unreliable when used to characterize wind directions, altitudes, and air pressure within 1 meter and 1 second intervals of accuracy. These kinds of problems rear their ugly heads whenever someone claims accuracy in the reconstruction using measurements made for other purposes in an earlier time period to reconstruct a time series of another kind in the present time and forecast of the future. The ice volume research has an inherent problem when they attempt to infer satellite measurements for time periods prior to the existence of such satellites and prior to the existence of any kind of orbital satellite.
To get a feel for the nature of the problem, you should for just the fun of it attempt to find those submarine upwards sonar scans of the ice thicknesses in the seas I wrote about earlier. You may also find it interesting to see why obtaining the aerial ice thickness measurements for the East Siberian Sea prior to recent decades tends to be problematic. Clue: aircraft attempting to do so encountered problems, often fatal.
With respect to sources discussing the uncertainties, you are basically asking for much of the content of this blog and Website. If you investigate the content here, at Climate Audit, and other worthy Websites included in their references, you can find just such discussions of innumerable references. Sometimes the authors of these peer reviewed studies have written the blog posts discussing the pros and cons of these sources. In particular, you would be well advised to see the contributions of Roy Spencer and John Christy, who are the sources of much of the satellite observations and studies. They can certainly be more helpful describing the strengths and weaknesses of their own satellite observation programmes.
As for the peer reviewed research you cited, remember most peer reviewed research is later demonstrated to be flat out wrong. The question of whether or not any particular example of the peer reviewed papers in climate science is right or wrong and to what extent is the topic of debate within and without science, regardless of attempts by anti-scientific voices attempting to propagandize that the science is settled. By its very Nature, science is not and never ever can be “settled.” You can observe this problem yourself by carefully reading your source and finding how many times it used an estimate of data or data points as if they were the same as or tantamount to an actual direct measurement. Then ask yourself whether or not the peer reviewed paper, Alarmist or Skeptic, was misleading in its representation of the accuracy and appropriate application of the existing and any non-existing data. All papers make such mistakes, but it may be illustrative to see who is more prevalent in making such inappropriate assertions.
OK, let me explain. I am merely a layperson with absolutely no relevant scientific credentials and many limitations when it comes to understanding scientific literature. I do however, have some understanding of the importance of peer reviewed and that is why I am asking for citations of peer reviewed papers so I can get a feeling for the argument. You have kindly pointed me in the direction of some and I will have a look at the work of Spencer and Christy.
I “do not accept the data on the grounds that it is incomplete and therefore invalid [….] “ etc
That fine. But, whatever your reasons and as you have already said, it is not taken seriously by sceptics due its inaccuracies and this is the only point I was trying to make. Apologies if I did not get you quite right on that.
*As for the peer reviewed research you cited, remember most peer reviewed research is later demonstrated to be flat out wrong.
Indeed. But is it not the case that this demonstration will usually be displayed in another peer reviewed paper by other scientists such as Spencer and Christy of whom you mention?
*By its very Nature, science is not and never ever can be “settled.”
Of course you are right. But would I not be correct in saying that science does asses the weight of evdence supporting a particular theory and an estimate of probability that the theory is correct is then given. Any decisions that need to be made are done so on the level of probability ascribed to the theory. You do not wait until you have 100% certainty because it is not achievable.
In relation to how the extent of polar ice is measured it is at least “settled” enough for there to be agreement between warmists and sceptics that the data can be used to show more or less accurately that which it intends to show.
*You can observe this problem yourself by carefully reading your source and finding how many times it used an estimate of data or data points as if they were the same as or tantamount to an actual direct measurement. Then ask yourself whether or not the peer reviewed paper, Alarmist or Skeptic, was misleading in its representation of the accuracy and appropriate application of the existing and any non-existing data. All papers make such mistakes, but it may be illustrative to see who is more prevalent in making such inappropriate assertions.
I would find it very helpful if you could give me at least 1 citation, preferably relating to the main topic we are discussing here i.e. polar ice, and ideally of the most blatant case of that which you describe as this will make it much easier for me to ascertain.
I apologise if I do not respond to all the points you make or follow all the areas of enquiry you suggest but I only started off with the intention of making a few enquiries and not for it to become some sort of full-time hobby. Believe me, taking part in this discussion is not something that I can naturally do without a considerable amount of effort and I am well aware that I can easily misunderstand what you have to say if I am not very careful in my reading.
JonBo:
I have had a look at Spencer & Christy but their work seems to be about satellite measurements of temperature. I am specifically looking for work of qualified scientists in the area of ice volume. Whatever the criticims may be of temperature measurements, I cannot extrapolite this to cover measurements of ice volumes as they are 2 different things. I am just wanting to focus on one issue at a time and not flit from issue to issue or follow other areas of enquiry until I have completed this one. I am still trying to discover what is contained in the scientific literature as to the usefulness and reliablity of polar ice volume measurements ,whether it can reliably be used to say that volume is increasing/decreasing and to what degree of accuracy, and where I can find a critique in the literature of the use of this data that would justify sceptics to exclude the use of this data.
*You can observe this problem yourself by carefully reading your source and finding how many times it used an estimate of data or data points as if they were the same as or tantamount to an actual direct measurement.”
This would tell me nothing about its validity or usefulness. For all I know measurements may be taken between large distances and estimates put in and still found to have a high degree of accuracy. That is for scientists to decide and explain in the literature and not for me to just decide for myself when I have no expertise.
*The problem arises when some people attempt to mislead society into trusting so-called scientists who wrongly and improperly attempt to pass off and sell estimates as the same weight of evidence as real world data of adequate accuracies. This is when the peer reviewed research abuses privilege and veers off into the area in which it may be said that scientific fraud may be taking place. People attempting the similar kinds of misrepresentations of technical data in the financial markets have often ended up behind prison bars.
This is a very serious accusation. If you have evidence of this in relation to the topic under discussion (measurements of polar ice volume) can you please give me the specific citations for me to check. I feel that if you are making such serious allegations then you should be providing me with the necessary citations and references rather than just advising me to look around this website.
In addition:
I have gone back and had another look at the graph on arctic sea ice extent and have ralised that Moranos use of 2007 is a blatant cherry pick.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Obviously he is correct in saying that arctic ice extenthas recovered by using this low point, but it is still the second lowest point on the graph. Hardly the stunning rebuke to climate scientists that he claims. Pick a year either side and you get a downward trend. But whatever of these you choose to pick as your starting point it might not be statistically meaningful as climate scientists mainly concern themselves with long-term trends.
Thankyou