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.
I got a nice response from Judith saying cloud data supported my contention that increased summer ice melt was in large part due to increased insolation from decreased clouds, but the data indicated winter cloud cover had increased, so could not be the cause of increasing winter ice formation.
I find this surprising and will need to read the papers Judith linked, as not all clouds are equal.
Predictably, the 2 warmists ignored my point.
Will climatedialogue.org (and WUWT and all web media concerning climate) have filters to tackle the new Al Gore funded propaganda/spam platform?
See http://realitydrop.org/about
“Spread truth, destroy denial” is their logo and it’s presented as a tool which constantly aggregates all climate websites and blogs for members, presents them with a pre-written text to counter any information detected that’s anti-AGW, and awards points if they copy and paste it into blogs or other social media.
Examples … http://realitydrop.org/myths
It’s ideal for AGW believers who don’t have a clue about the science and/or are incapable of writing a coherent argument.
This is the stuff Goebbels used to dream about.
When I scanned the headline I actually read:
ClimateDenialogue.org
Temp
It may be convenient for modelers to define climate as long term weather patterns in order to model conditions like short term weather patterns but this is stacking the deck in favor of the Earth as a greenhouse rather than looking at the Earth as a planet.Climate is defined within a spectrum that moves from equatorial to polar due to axial inclination regardless of its distance from the Sun or its base temperature – a polar climate sees extreme latitudinal fluctuations in conditions for a 90 degree inclination while a planet with an equatorial zero degree inclination would experience little variation in weather conditions.
If the modelers want to be useful for a change,let them give our planet an inclination like that of Uranus while retaining the Earth’s daily rotational speed and its orbital period.They will see models where there is a greater Arctic sea ice extent as more of the Earth’s surface is turned away from the Sun for longer periods and a more rapid melt as they turn back towards the Sun.The idea is familiarization with the idea of planetary climate spectrum with the Earth’s inclination tending towards the equatorial end of that spectrum.
As long as long term weather patterns are accepted as a baseline for climate it will be impossible to draw planetary comparisons and the common denominator that actually defines climate by way of the polar/equatorial spectrum.
Gerald Kelleher says:
November 17, 2012 at 10:52 pm
While I don’t overall disagree with your argument. I also don’t think the cultists would ever come near it. Plus realistically past patterns would include axial inclination and planetary movements in general would get included when you start using real longer term cycles. I would like to try to avoid getting to much into axial changes in the “extreme” as I know the doomsday cultists will blame that on man as well. I believe the earth is going through a very natural cycle and thus it just a simple matter using past record(real past records not creationist 45 years ago records) this can be easily proven. I personally don’t care if the models are “perfectly” correct as long as they are reasonable rational. I would rather crush the cultists so research money and people can go into real research figuring out how the planet works “perfectly” then going on the very long and harsh road of doing both huge research into the way the earth really works and at the same time fighting the cultists. Skeptics barely have the resources to deal with the propaganda at the moment. I also believe that history has shown in “science” cases such as past “global warming” type doomsday events that even when a small group of scientists prove beyond doubt they are correct that the “main stream science” still will refuse for decades to admit it.
temp says:
November 18, 2012 at 7:34 am
Gerald Kelleher says:
November 17, 2012 at 10:52 pm
…. I also believe that history has shown in “science” cases such as past “global warming” type doomsday events that even when a small group of scientists prove beyond doubt they are correct that the “main stream science” still will refuse for decades to admit it.
_______________________________________
And that is without adding in the Money, Politics and Ideology that is riding on the “science” The fight over whether a bacterium called Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is a major cause of peptic ulcers was bad enough. It took ten years to gain acceptance. link Plate Tectonics was even worse. It took from 1912 to the 1960’s for the idea to be accepted and it did not have the money or politics infecting it that CAGW does.
I hope to see the death of the idea within my lifetime. I hope to see it squashed as a political football very shortly as the reality of just what energy scarcity means enters the heads of the sheeple.
Gail Combs
In 2005 I proposed that plate tectonics and the planet’s spherical deviation could be accounted for by a common mechanism that is already observed in exposed rotating celestial compositions,in this case differential rotation where there is an uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes.The wider geological community got wind of this proposal but instead of taking their time to go through a rough draft,they threw the kitchen sink at rotation and created a Frankenstein’s monster of a thing which you can see in Wikipedia and coyly talk about the ‘debate still open’.It doesn’t matter,sooner or later if they apply the most likely rotational mechanism to the evolution of the surface crust they are going to run into why the planet shape diverges from a perfect sphere.
Is it so difficult to shift axial precession from a long term axial trait to an annual orbital trait and especially as Arctic sea ice growth and diminution depends on how the polar coordinates are carried around in a circle to the central Sun?.If you can’t account for its actual annual presence then what is the point discussing longer term variations ?.
Temp
I reiterate – the arguments are being lost in high school and even younger pupils so among yourselves where it seems you are making inroads into this farce,a subtle indoctrination goes on where it matters and all it needs is time –
http://climatekids.nasa.gov/menu/weather-and-climate/
We have the imaging capacity to define climate properly using planetary comparisons and even present the reasons why there is Arctic sea ice in the first place but it takes a researcher who genuinely wants to make a difference to step back and look at climate the same way as Wegener looked at the planet at its widest conception and drew conclusions nobody else did based on a fundamental tenet of genuine science –
“Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only be reached by combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine ‘truth’ here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw.”Alfred Wegener. The Origins of Continents and Oceans (4th edition)
Axial inclination defines the spectrum of planetary climate,it is not just another input but absolutely crucial to consider that spectrum bookended by polar on one side and equatorial on the other thereby getting rid of the older and unproductive ’tilt’ towards and away from the Sun in producing Arctic sea ice.Without this major modification,the show is over and not just for climate studies but the dubious victory of pseudoscientific modeling backed by a system that no longer educates students but indoctrinates them.
Ironically, I’m skeptical.
It smells of the sort of thing where honest, reasonable people get looped into a dark alley and are mugged.
To:
Subject: Re: The Big Question
Date: Monday, 19 November 2012 8:41 AM
Marcel,
Alarmists will love that. Split it up into tiny pieces so they can get lost
in arguing about trivia.
Ask alarmists the central question “what is the evidence” and as you know,
there is a deafening silence.
It is clear what side of the fence you are on.
Regards,
Dr Burns
—–Original Message—–
From: info@climatedialogue.org
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 9:49 PM
To: Dr Burns
Subject: Re: The Big Question
Dr Burns
Like you say this question is big, too big in our opinion to discuss. So
we have to cut it in many pieces. But things like climate sensitivity and
ocean heat content will be discussed in the future,
cheers
Marcel
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> Why not ask the big one … “Exactly what is the evidence for man caused
> global warming?
>
> Not, just warming, what is the evidence that man is causing global
> warming, including the past 16 years with no warming at all.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dr Burns
It’s going to be pretty one-sided I suspect. No CAGW supporter is going to blog, well maybe blog, but there’ll be no back and forth debating, unless a skeptic posts a boner. This is great in theory, but only one side has anything to lose so why would they?
The return of the hysteria is difficult to bear ,not so much the idea of the Earth as a greenhouse but that humanity has control of the temperature dial –
“While the global community has committed itself to holding warming below 2°C to prevent “dangerous” climate change, the sum total of current policies—in place and pledged—will very likely lead to warming far in excess of this level. Indeed, present emission trends put the world” World Bank report
It is as though an intellectual autism has set in,an uncaring attitude passed off as concern for human welfare and the only means to combat it is surprisingly simple – raise the standard of understanding of planetary climate rather than contend with pseudoscientific modeling.
The biggest concern of genuine scientists is that intellectual drones wreck havoc with information they cannot handle properly and this is not something new,it is just more prevalent today with an education system perilously close to an indoctrination process –
“.. ideas attained by great men of deep devotion not to be ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated to the non acquisitive study of science by the exhortation and example of others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the same part among more reasonable men as drones among bees. When I weighed these considerations, the scorn which I had reason to fear on account of the novelty and unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me to abandon completely the work which I had undertaken. ” Copernicus in a letter to Pope Paul
With a planetary climate still to be defined properly as a spectrum,how long can readers here ignore it in order to engage with people who have nothing productive to add to human understanding of climate or is it that personal animosity appears to substitute for progress where the arguments are framed as competing pseudoscientific models rather than climate itself – a sort of pretense on both sides.
I have watched with unease as the so-called ‘climate change’ community tries to adapt to the idea of the polar coordinates turning to the central Sun as a consequence of the orbital behavior of the planet thereby shifting around issues like axial precession ,the role of inclination and things like that while this community runs down the road of personal attacks thereby making things worse than they were before.
A couple of things come to mind. First, by it’s very nature climate is long-term. Virtually every climate sub-topic has historical under-pinnings from geological, biological, astronomical, chemical, geographical or other sciences. Many of the proxies used for historical recreation of climate reflect that history. All chosen topics should include a first debate about the historical aspects of the science. A history of changes in arctic sea ice would have been a good start as it may have helped define “unprecedented”. This would provide some understanding of the essential natural variability associated with climate change. Second, it might be wise to go with two or four “experts, rather than three (unless you can find a true “neutral” for every topic- (good luck with that). In light of the “climategate” emails, one has to question using “refereed” articles as the major guide to selection of “experts”. Please recall the overt efforts to silence critics of the team, get rid of editors and thus dominate journals. Articles in some journals may not really be refereed at all. Clear evidence lies in recent retractions and withdrawals. Also please keep in mind that many issues in climate science are more closely related to other sciences such as statistics, engineering and modelling. Climate science has data- and it has methods. Many of the most serious issues derive from data, and many others from methods. Let’s see both. I will watch with interest.
R2Dtoo
Planetary climate is based on a fixed spectrum and there is no ambiguity whatsoever.A planet with zero inclination does no experience no seasons,a planet with that inclination experiences equatorial conditions whereas a planet with a 90 degree inclination has a polar climate.
It must seem convenient to define climate as long term weather patterns in order to make it appear that climate can be modeled like weather but let the modelers give the Earth the axial inclination attribute of Uranus and model weather conditions for a year including sea ice fluctuations and they will clearly see definitively that planetary climate is anchored of daily and orbital attributes.
Too much celebrity personal animosity here which is a shame,the only real chance to avoid this continuing tragedy is to raise the standards of understanding rather than a race to the bottom.
Poor proofreading again !apologizes and, and I am out of here.