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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Maybe someday readers will get around to understanding the annual growth and decrease in Arctic sea ice due to the orbital behavior of the Earth,the fact that the explanation is already staring people in the face and they still rely on an outdated axial tilt towards and away from the Sun .
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
Academics generally can’t operate without reference building so shifting axial precession from a long term axial trait to an annual orbital trait,as the polar coordinates act like a beacon for the orbital behavior of the planet and create Arctic sea ice in the process,may be close to an impossible task.
This truly awful modeling pseudoscience is not lost at the level of academics and climatedialogue.org,it is being lost at high school and younger where students enter an indoctrination process that they may find almost impossible to shake as adults.
It is a start, at least. I’ve read nearly all the public comments and it resembles the usual discourse on a range of sites.
This is a classic;
I’m not an expert, but I am confident that they are wrong. That’s because sea ice volume in the Arctic has steadily declined since 1979. A virtually ice-free Arctic seems inevitable before the end of 2015, but could happen next year.
And this from someone who disapproves of JC’s mildly ‘sceptical’ stance;
I think this is obviously nonsensical, it is certainly contrary to all published research in this area, and call upon her to either
Withdraw her statement, or
Clarify how I have misunderstood it (and to be precise, let’s hear her prediction for future trend in Arctic sea ice), or
Justify it with reference to quantitative analysis.
The image at the top (black silhouettes against a blue sky) has 13 folks. Three seem to be smoking something. Four or five appear to be carrying guns. One seems to be sucking on his thumb. However, the “artist” has copied and pasted the silhouettes – such that we are looking at clones. Hardly a good start.
Wonderful idea, plenty thanks!! 😀
Brgds from Sweden
/TJ
I noticed that if I log out of “Climate Dialogue” I cannot see my “public” post. That means casual visitors who do not create an identity are going to see a biased discussion, ie, no independent thought. I might as well visit skeptical science if I want a one sided discussion. Classic FAIL imo.
There is a fundamental problem here. If they are only going to draw on the skills of qualified climate scientists or those who have specialist knowledge in an area, (like the guys in the first round seem to know their stuff about ice) then there are not that many skeptics to call on. I can think of half a dozen. On the other hand there are literally thousands of climate scientists who bat for the other team. This makes it near impossible to have an even debate.
NetDr says:
“What I have seen very little discussion of is that CO2 by acting like a blanket ”
Gees, weird sort of blanket that actually cools the surface down when its hot, and does nothing when its cold.
This is exactly the opposite of what a blanket does !
Having seen a lot of comments which confirm my belief that Climate Dialogue has started with a very biased subject, it is sobering to visit http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/newsitems/2012/pbl-knmi-and-crok-launch-climate-discussion-platform-climatedialogueorg. Here we find:-
ClimateDialogue.org is the result of a request by the Dutch parliament to facilitate the scientific discussions between climate experts representing the full range of views on the subject. It is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.
So Climate Doalogue is set up under the auspices of the Dutch Parliamnet, and funded with money from the Dutch public purse. It seems to me that if the owners of Climate Dialogue dont hurry up and clean up their act, then they could find themselves being in contempt of the Dutch Parlianent, and wasting public funds. Maybe that would be just desserts for the way they have started up.
Earliest source for denialist? How about DesCartes, Discourse on Method? If anyone cannot grasp how being a skeptic is the first requirement for addressing questions about the physical world in a scientific manner, it will be a difficult conversation.
If you have not read Discourse, or Meditations on First Philosophy, go get free versions and enjoy. That pretty much ends the discussion of whether the views of skeptics should be entertained at all.
No, my friends, please do not reject this initiative, if it is genuine (which, frrom what I see, I think it is).
I am English, but I lived for three years in Holland (1977-1980). I think I took away a fair understanding of Dutch culture and people. They aren’t too concerned with minutiae.
When I visited Holland in May 2008, the signs – even on railway station platforms –
said “Choose the STRONGEST law against global warming.”
The propaganda was much more muted on my last visit (June 2012).
Now comes for my Dutch friends the task of preparing people for “you were lied to…”
@Simon
If they are only going to draw on the skills of qualified climate scientists or those who have specialist knowledge in an area, (like the guys in the first round seem to know their stuff about ice) then there are not that many skeptics to call on. I can think of half a dozen. On the other hand there are literally thousands of climate scientists who bat for the other team. This makes it near impossible to have an even debate.
There is an old saying which I can paraphrase by saying that if the task demands carthorses, then more is indeed better. But if the task demands a racehorse, then one is enough….
Dutch – in Afghanistan it was said it stands for Don’t Understand The Concept Here!
Look at this masterpiece of Judith Curry’s: “My assessment is that it is likely (>66% likelihood) that there is 50-50 split between natural variability and anthropogenic forcing, with +/-20% range. Why such a ‘wishy washy’ statement with large error bars? Well, observations are ambiguous, models are inadequate, and our understanding of the complex interactions of the climate system is incomplete.”
My guess is that she wants to have it both ways. It is not clear which side wins eventually, so she is a warmist and a skeptic at the same time.
yeah the comment rules also pretty much prevent people from really taking apart the doomsday cultists.
“Basic science is taken as proven – This blog accepts the standard field of physics as proven. Arguments that depend on overturning standard physics, e.g. disproving quantum mechanics, are deemed not relevant, until such time as a significant part of the physics community has accepted that there is some merit to them.”
They seem to forget that global warming is “proven”. This seems like a standard statement to censor people when they bring up arguments that the doomsday cultists can’t refute.
“Political affiliation – ideological and political background of participants in the climate debate, whether on Climate Dialogue or elsewhere, is considered not relevant. Please avoid references to political ideas or convictions – real or supposed.”
Motivation – speculations on how and why various groups or individuals may or may not benefit financially from a particular point of view being true, false, falsely claimed to be true, etc. is deemed to be irrelevant.”
Yup lets not talk about why the we need action now or how things will get “fixed” just another censorship tool to bash anyone not playing ball.
Ad hominems – avoid using ad hominems (criticizing a person’s character, conduct, expertise or interests); they are detrimental to the discussion.
Yeah catch all censorship. Ad hominems should never been used to censor people who censor based on ad hominems neither understand what ad hominems and are anti-science. Censorship of ad hominems is in fact an ad hominem attack on the person.
Bottom line the site basically plays the Realclimate game of heavy censorship and having controlled content. Its going to end up like realclimate, accepted as “the greatest science ever” by the doomsday cultists and shunned by everyone who is not a hardcore cultist.
this is the link I forgot to add in my previous comment: http://www.climatedialogue.org/melting-of-the-arctic-sea-ice/#comment-27
Perhaps they could start with exactly how CO2 molecules “trap” heat and “reradiate” this heat back to earth? As a layman reading all the blogs in the last year, there has not been a definitive, proven, explanation of this phenomenon which is the key to all AGW arguments.
It will be interesting how many warmers attend
And yet the denialists think they need another website to “educate” us:
http://realitydrop.org
Sponsored by? Al Gore et. al. (CRP)
“…Reality Drop’s mission is to reveal the denial and deception around climate change and spread the truth — so we can clear the way toward real solutions.
We can win the climate change conversation. We have something on our side that no amount of money can buy: Reality…”
If no amount of money can buy reality, then why is CRP accepting donations?
“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.”
Starts right off with an assumption that there IS global warming. How about the last 15 or so years?
come into my parlor, said the piven to the cloward,
let our minds meet and help our sweet agenda to go foward.
the pathway to submission is up a winding stair,
and though it may exhaust you, there are manny distractions there.
’tis as you say- please light my way, said cloward to the piven.
for ne’er can be sufficiency of blood or taxes given.
therefore please release my from perpetual alarm..
would you prefer my donation now to be a leg or arm?
+++++++++++++++++++++++
like we need more epiphytes on this dung?
where is all the cash coming from to maintain the life support of the cagw debate framers?
is it all on spec, like the nobel prizes awarded to gore and obama?
“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?”
why didnt they start with ‘why does 2+2 =5?”
1. Hadcrut4 is the worst of the lot when it comes to spatial coverage.
2. Hadcrut METHOD is the worst of the lot when it comes to bias and error
3. Hadcrut method is the worst of the lot when it comes to uncertainty.
So, why would you start by picking the worst method that gives the highest errors to initiate a debate ?
Of course warmists are no better since they continue to use hadcrut4, but a good skeptic would start by looking at all the data and seeing how the conclusions varied as a function of data choice
( analyst uncertainty)
In general, just because the warmists persist in certain errors doesnt mean you have to repeat them.
I’ve just posted this,
The trend in the Arctic ice minimum extent is -8.2%/decade. While the trend in the maximum extent is -2.78%/decade. This means we are seeing both increasing summer ice melt and increasing winter ice formation (measured by extent).
This IMO points to decreased cloud cover as the primary cause of both, from increased summer insolation warming and increased winter radiative cooling. This also explains why Antarctic sea ice is increasing, as black carbon is almost absent there, and the albedo difference (compared to the Arctic) results in less summer ice melt.
But I am interested in hearing the views of the experts on what causes the increasing winter Arctic sea ice formation trend.
The fact that Marcel Crok is part of the “team” on Climate Dialogue is a huge plus.
See a.o: http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/NWT-feb-2005-hockey-stick-English.pdf
(he is a blogger on climategate.nl).
Steven Mosher says:
November 16, 2012 at 2:58 pm
1. Hadcrut4 is the worst of the lot when it comes to spatial coverage.
2. Hadcrut METHOD is the worst of the lot when it comes to bias and error
3. Hadcrut method is the worst of the lot when it comes to uncertainty.
Hadcrut is clearly the worst of the lot for singing from the approved hymn-sheet.
They are probably also worst of the lot for talking about baseball.
National preferences aside, I dont see warming in the last 15 years leaping off the page from any of the other datasets either.
There already are a few sites where climate science can be openly discussed and differing opinions can be expressed, with moderation reserved solely for unpleasantness. These sites are of course, WUWT, Climate Audit, Bishop Hill, Jo Nova etc etc. The fact that members of the Team and their activist progeny generally don’t engage at these sites speaks for itself. On the rare occasions that a serious discussion occurs the CAGW believer frequently resorts to insults such as the unimaginative ‘climate denier’ cliche.
It’s possible that Climate Dialogue is another deceit like naming a well known site which unquestioningly believes in CAGW, ‘Skeptical’ but which refuses to allow comments expressing alternative ideas or flaws in their logic. But we shall soon see whether they have a completely open dialogue or one biased towards an assumption.