Exploring different views on climate change
Goal of ClimateDialogue.org
ClimateDialogue.org offers a platform for discussions between invited climate scientists on important climate topics that have been subject to scientific and public debate. The goal of the platform is to explore the full range of views currently held by scientists by inviting experts with different views on the topic of discussion. We encourage the invited scientists to formulate their own personal scientific views; they are not asked to act as representatives for any particular group in the climate debate.
Obviously, there are many excellent blogs that facilitate discussions between climate experts, but as the climate debate is highly polarized and politicized, blog discussions between experts with opposing views are rare.
Background
The discovery, early 2010, of a number of errors in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report on climate impacts (Working Group II), led to a review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC by the InterAcademy Council (IAC). The IAC-report triggered a debate in the Dutch Parliament about the reliability of climate science in general. Based on the IAC-recommendation that ‘the full range of views’ should be covered in the IPCC-reports, Parliament asked the Dutch government ‘to also involve climate skeptics in future studies on climate change’.
In response, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment announced a number of projects that are aimed to increase this involvement. Climate Dialogue is one of these projects.
Topics
We are starting Climate Dialogue with a discussion on the causes of the decline of the Arctic Sea Ice, and the question to what extent this decline can be explained by global warming. Also, the projected timing of the first year that the Arctic will be ice free will be discussed. With respect to the latter, in its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, IPCC anticipated that (near) ice free conditions might occur by the end of this century. Since then, several studies have indicated this could be between 2030-2050, or even earlier.
We invited three experts to take part in the discussion: Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; Walt Meier, research scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado; and Ron Lindsay, Senior Principal Physicist at the Polar Science Center of the University of Washington in Seattle.
Future topics that will be discussed include: climate sensitivity, sea level rise, urban heat island-effects, the value of comprehensive climate models, ocean heat storage, and the warming trend over the past few decades.
Our format
Each discussion will be kicked off by a short introduction written by the editorial staff, followed by a guest blog by two or more invited scientists. The scientists will start the discussion by responding to each other’s arguments. It is not the goal of Climate Dialogue to reach a consensus, but to stimulate the discussion and to make clear what the discussants agree or disagree on and why.
To round off the discussion on a particular topic, the Climate Dialogue editor will write a summary, describing the areas of agreement and disagreement between the discussants. The participants will be asked to approve this final article, the discussion between the experts on that topic will then be closed and the editorial board will open a new discussion on a different topic.
The public (including other climate scientists) is also free to comment, but for practical reasons these comments will be shown separately.
The project organization consists of an editorial staff of three people and an advisory board of seven people, all of whom are based in the Netherlands. The editorial staff is concerned with the day-to-day operation of researching topics, finding participants for the discussion and moderating the discussions between the experts. The main task of the advisory board is to guard the neutrality of the platform and to advise the editorial staff about its activities
Editorial Staff
Project leader is Rob van Dorland of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI). Van Dorland is a senior scientist and climate advisor in the Climate Services section and is often operating at the interface between science and society.
The second member is Bart Strengers. He is a climate policy analyst and modeler in the IMAGE-project at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) and has been involved in the discussion with climate skeptics for many years.
The third member is Marcel Crok, an investigative science writer, who published a critical book (in Dutch) about the climate debate.
Questions
We welcome comments on this blog and are happy to answer any questions regarding this project. You can send an email to info [at] climatedialogue [dot] org.
Website: ClimateDialogue.org
Jim Cripwell says:
November 16, 2012 at 10:26 am
Well thats is unfortunate but unsurprising.
William Connelly (aka “Stoat”) of Wikipaedia infamy discusses ClimateDialogue.org on his blog:
[snip]
In it he says “…they’re going to have to work out how to suppress the nutters…”
He is self-editing!
Goal of ClimateDialogue.org
ClimateDialogue.org offers a platform for discussions between invited climate scientists on important climate topics that have been subject to scientific and public debate. The goal of the platform is to explore the full range of views currently held by scientists by inviting experts with different views on the topic of discussion. We encourage the invited scientists to formulate their own personal scientific views; they are not asked to act as representatives for any particular group in the climate debate.
No Thank you.
V.
“.they are not asked to act as representatives for any particular group in the climate debate.” is a long way from, “they are asked NOT to act as representatives for any particular group…” We can be quite certain that advocacy groups will attempt to control this initiative. The saving graces are that Prof. Curry, who has a wealth of experience in deflecting aggressive and manipulative behaviour, is part of the platform, and that Cloggies are traditionally very difficult to overawe or deflect from a set purpose. As a Complete Non-Scientist, I’m looking forward to this latest attempt to get more light and less heat from the debate.
Arctic Sea Ice
Intro: What are the causes of the decline in Arctic sea ice? Is it dominated by global warming or can it be explained by natural variability?
Walt Meier: …cannot be explained without the long-term warming trend that has been attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Judith Curry: My assessment is that it is likely (>66% likelihood) that there is 50-50 split between natural variability and anthropogenic forcing, with +/-20% range.
Ron Lindsay: I believe fundamentally the main process causing the decline in Arctic sea ice is increasing greenhouse gases.
The way this becomes unbiased dialogue is by convincing people this is what an unbiased presentation looks like.
This is much like the unbiased media coverage of the 2012 US Presidential election. When the correspondent would toss out a neutral question to the panel, composed of the die-hard Democrat who always supported Obama, the “moderate” Democrat who could agree Obama could have worn a different tie, and the one or two token Republicans who would think Romney could do better by being more like Obama.
Is this for real? It sounds too good to be true. Have they invented some new device that filters out bias?
Yep, as Marshall McKluen said, “The MEDIA IS THE MESSAGE”. CLIMATE my EYE, it’s ALL, completely, 100% CO2 and the atmospheric energy balance.
Anything else is this:
It is interesting on the new site to see the discussion of the Artic sea ice with no discussion of the Antartic sea ice. Since folks are concerned about global warming, shouldn’t the discussion include why has the Artic ice shrunk and the Antartic ice increased?
So far so good. One quick spot sampling of the site showed me from Judith Curry’s comment that the sea ice prediction models do not work on decadal scales. That confirms my intent to keep studying the AMO, PDO, and South Atlantic sea temp cycles, all of which are multi-decadal cycles.
I see none of the three have considered the history of the Arctic during the holocene. Most evidence suggests the Arctic has been warmer and with less ice throughout most of the time since the end of the ice age.
Indeed it is generally accepted that the LIA was the coldest period for the last 10000 years.
For instance:-
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/little-ice-age-was-the-coldest-period-for-10000-years/
I am not sure how we can draw conclusions about the last 100 years without understanding the longer term changes.
In line with others, I wonder they started with the Arctic? What about asking why there has been no warming for the last 15 yrs?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
November 16, 2012 at 11:10 am
Yes after even briefly reviewing the stuff I find this really disturbing.
Ron Lindsay ∨
“I believe fundamentally the main process causing the decline in Arctic sea ice is increasing greenhouse gases.”
Ok yeah clearly a cultists no surprise.
“Evidence for the role of greenhouse gases must come primarily from modeling studies.”
Yes thats great… pure fantasy based worlds are now evidence. Not empirical data, not observational data, not science data just fantasy worlds. Yet we review and see
“I believe fundamentally the main process causing the decline in Arctic sea ice is increasing greenhouse gases.”
Really? Based on no data outside of the fantasy world.
Then you have this
“But the actual detailed mechanisms for the decline are currently unknowable.”
Really? So lets confirm, you know for sure the arctic is melting due to CO2 but you have no evidence and you openly admit that not only can you not provide evidence but that its impossible currently to provide evidence. No religious cult overtones in this his statement at all…
One wonders if this is basically a remodeled quote based on this quote “We lost WW1 and I know it was the jews fault, I don’t know how, I don’t have any evidence but I know its the jews fault.”
Calling this “science” is borderline dangerous.
Next invited will be MM and JH !! Just to keep it non-biased.
And maybe KT.. that would be a traversty.
20 years overdue but better late than never. I hope the BBC is paying attention. This is (I hope) how its done. This is how all science has traditionally been done – open debate – and not declaring something being over. That was the red flag for many people.
Almost there, but they should have left the second part of the question out and let the scientists mention it or not and to what extent.
Imagine the same question posed about the recession of the northern polar Mars ice cap.
What I have seen very little discussion of is that CO2 by acting like a blanket should even out temperatures and make storms milder.
Did all alarmists sleep through thermodynamics ?
Strikes me , that dialogue requires a common language, so the terms must be defined in advance, so I emailed Climate Dialogue and asked if a dialogue on the scientific case for CAGW/CC/ect could be arranged. And as others here have said the terms must be defined, what does Climate Change mean? Climate is a changing thing is it not? I keep thinking climate change = water wet. not a useful way to express oneself if I mean water. Non-changing climate would be more unusual if history is any guide. And extreme weather? Um storm ?This meme is sad and pathetic it could only have meaning to people who have never been outside for extended periods. The presumption of AGW inherent in so much of the discussion is dishonest and I think deliberate we will see if Climate Dialogue lives up to its chosen name, otherwise it will go on to join sceptical science and real science in the dust bins of historical derision.
I too am wondering why an early topic for them is the Arctic. Why not the poles? If the Antarctic was showing a diminishing sea ice concentration, would they begin there? I fear a bias from the get-go, but I’ll give them a chance.
I’m tired of this false balance!
When are we going to stop letting these alarmists have platforms from which to spill their nonsense?
/sarc
Petrossa says: November 16, 2012 at 10:20 am
“Dutch, so it is biased. Pretty pointless site therefore.”
—–
Explain please.
None of them has a history of scientific assessment. All of their statements on AGW appear to be just that. It’s our fault and don’t interrupt me. They have in the past shown a distinct lack of scientific rigour and that includes Judith even though I admire her ethics.
I’ll wait and see. As the saying goes, how can I believe what say when I can see what you do.
It all sounds wonderful on a first reading. At last, someone is setting about getting a proper unbiased dialogue going. At last, the relentless propaganda of CAGW is going to be countered in a scientific manner.
But the wonderful feeling only lasts for a few seconds, until reality returns. The first question is biased – ” a discussion on the causes of the decline of the Arctic Sea Ice, and the question to what extent this decline can be explained by global warming””. Obviously, “Arctic” should be “global”. But once that change is made, the question makes little sense, because the “decline in global sea ice” is neither significant nor uniform. But wait a moment, we’re all so obsessed with sea ice that it was easy to make the mistake that I have just made. It should be “global ice”, not “global sea ice”.
But all this is as nothing compared to the unqualified use of the term “global warming”. “Global Warming” has unfortunately succumbed to the determined and deliberate distortion of language by CAGW campaigners. “Global Warming” now means “man-made global warming”, “climate change” now means “man-made climate change”, the “climate” in “climate sceptic” doesn’t mean “climate” at all, “carbon” means “carbon dioxide”, “emissions” means “carbon dioxide emissions”, “clean” means “does not emit carbon dioxide”.
I could now re-word the first question, but it no longer makes much sense – or certainly not as a first question,
If they are serious about setting up a genuine unbiased dialogue, then they must first start by stepping back from all the “hot topics” and actually recognise two possibilities: one – that mankind is dangerously warming the planet as described by the IPCC. Two – that they are not.
Correction – “climate change” now means “man-made global warming”.
The language distortions have been so effective, it is easy to fall into the traps.
Looking like this new web site might be better called “Climate Monologue” .
Maybe a good idea, but a biased implementation from the get go !
using “invited” scientists means they can bias the discussion exactly how they want to.
you’ll never de-bias science, until you get government grant money out of the picture.