Image Credit – Wood For Trees and Werner Brozek
From the Investor’s Business Daily:
The global warming alarmists repeat the line endlessly. They claim that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change. Fact is, they’re not even close.
Yes, many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the earth. Of course there are some who don’t.
But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth’s climate to warm.
This is the finding of the peer-reviewed paper “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” and this group is categorized as the “Comply with Kyoto” cohort.
Members of this group, not unexpectedly, “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
Academics Lianne M. Lefsrud of the University of Alberta and Renate E. Meyer of Vienna University of Economics and Business, and the Copenhagen Business School, came upon that number through a survey of 1,077 professional engineers and geoscientists. Read More At IBD
The study, Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change, by Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer can be found here.
A couple interesting quotes within:
“Third, we show that the consensus of IPCC experts meets a much larger, and again heterogenous, sceptical group of experts in the relevant industries and organizations (at least in Alberta) than is generally assumed. We find that climate science scepticism is not limited to the scientifically illiterate (per Hoffman, 2011a), but well ensconced within this group of professional experts with scientific training – who work as leaders or advisors to management in governmental, nongovernmental, and corporate organizations.”
…
“The vast majority of these professional experts believe that the climate is changing; it is the cause, the severity and the urgency of the problem, and the need to take action, especially the efficacy of regulation, that is at issue.”
The Investors Business Daily Article goes on to note that:
If the alarmists are getting only limited cooperation from man, they are getting even less from nature itself. Arctic sea ice, which sent the green shirts into a lather when it hit a record low in the summer of 2012, has “with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”
“This is only the third winter in history,” when more than 10 million square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic, Real Science reported on Tuesday, using data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois.
At the same time, the Antarctic “is now approaching 450 days of uninterrupted above normal ice area,” says the skeptical website Watts Up With That, which, also using University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research data, notes that “the last time the Antarctic sea ice was below normal” was Nov. 22, 2011.
“Green shirts”… I like it.
And if Michael Mann were to bust in to our house and start trying to peddle his leftist hooey about
global warminger climate change, I would say: “Quit what you’re saying. Cease and desist immediately from uttering your fallacious drivel. Because I don’t think it’s right that you green shirts try to push your leftist vision and ideas on the rest of us. At best what you fear-mongers holler about is extreme exaggeration; at worst, it’s an outright fabrication, like your hockey. stick. And without the hockey stick, there’s nothing unusual about current temperatures or the climate, it’s just another day on Planet Earth. Be gone bad Mann!! Before I call the cops!”For proof that WUWT allows comments by blinkered True Believers, check out the post by Vince Wilkinson above.
Wilkinson doesn’t understand some things. I’m here to help:
First, this survey was done by people very sympathetic to the catastrophic AGW scare. So all favorable numbers are padded, and 36% was all they could muster. The respondents who say that global warming was “partly” human-caused do not even know what they were responding to. Weasel words like “partly” can mean anything, so they mean nothing. “Partly” can mean 0.001%, or 40%, or anything. Since “partly” is not defined, it is meaningless and can be disregarded for all practical purposes.
There are no empirical, testable measurements available which confirm that belief. None. AGW is simply a conjecture. It has never been credibly measured. The ONLY cause-and-effect relationship between temperature and CO2 shows that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T — not vice-versa. Wilkinson cannot produce a similar chart showing that CO2 leads T. There are no such measurements available, but not for lack of searching.
The alarmist crowd started out with a faulty premise [CO2 causes measurable global warming], so they necessarily ended up with a faulty conclusion. CO2 may cause some minuscule warming, but any such warming is entirely beneficial. And for the past 16 years, there has been no global warming despite a steady rise in harmless, beneficial CO2.
The consternation expressed by people like Wilkinson stems from the falsification of their basic belief system. The globe is not warming, as was universally predicted by the entire alarmist crowd. Now their belief is being falsified by the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth. The inevitable result is wild-eyed comments like Wilkinson’s. It’s just cognitive dissonance from the True Believers in the catastrophic AGW scare.
Steven Mosher-
“After large ice losses in the melt season there is a negative feedback.”
When the sun drops sufficiently low in the sky, there is negative feedback, independent of ice loss. Except for May, June and July, the net radiative forcing is negative.
“Ice acts as an insulator, so where there is little or no ice, heat is lost rapidly leading to large increases in ice formation ( area ).”
Ice has a thermal conductivity more than 3 times higher than water. It is a lousy insulator. However, ice can reduce heat transport from the underlying water by creating a dead air space between the water surface and the underside of the ice, and/or by providing a shelf upon which an overcoat of insulating low density snow ( as low as 0.03 W/m-K for fresh snow versus 0.6 W/m-K for water and 2 W/m-K for ice) can find a perch.
DB Stealey,
what is the problem with an ice free arctic?
None that I can see. Look at what I wrote. quote my words exactly.
There are some simple facts that folks really dont have to deny, but they get trapped into denying them because they dont like the policies of the folks who point out the facts.
1. The arctic summer volumes, area and extent continue to decline.
You can attack satillites, or accuse them of fraud, but the summer ice is on a downtrend.
2. There may have been times in human history when it was less. Data here is less certain
than data in the past 30 years. So, one should not go around as you have, claiming
with certitude that there has been less ice. That’s a bad as alarmists claiming the loss
is unprecedented.
3. there are many potential causes for this, Among them: changes in SST, changes
in circulation patterns, changes in wind, soot, changes in clouds, salinity, and yes
changes in warming. For example, in the 30s when it was warmer low and behold there
is some evidence ( not proof) of less ice. And when it was warmer in the holocene, you
guessed it.. less ice. Did AGW cause all the loss? dont be silly. Does increased warmth
have nothing to do with? dont be silly.
4. The causes for ice gain and loss in the north pole and south pole are different. For example,
you see increased ice in the south. Does soot have anything to do with that? haha. The point
is you can’t really compare the north and south without attending to a host of different
factors that can drive the metrics in opposite directions over short time scales.
5 Effects. understanding the effects of less ice is at the Bleeding edge of science. With only a few datapoints, say 5-6 years ( 2007 and on ) the best you can expect is a variety of possible
impacts. Its clear however that one cannot conclude that there will be no problem. There isnt enough data to conclude there will be a problem and the converse holds as well. That same lack of data cannot support your certitude that there will be no problem. Ignorance is not bliss.
Here are some possible issues that bear looking into: changes in weather patterns in the NH.
Will you see “new weather” nope. You’ll see your grandfathers weather with a different frequency distribution. Like heavier snowfalls in the NH during winter? record snowfalls?
not necessarily. will you see it every year? nope, its weather. But on average, if the hypothesis hold up, you’ll see heavier than normal over long periods.
In short, there is no reason for alarm but neither is their reason to ignore the possible impacts.
There is no reason to bury your head in the sand. No reason to deny facts. No reason to trust reconstructions of the past over measure data from the present. No reason invent wacko ideas for why ice melts. No reason to attack the satellite community. just as on the other side there is no reason to extrapolate from a change in ice to the end of the world.
Finally it really is silly to find the most extreme alarmists and argue the exact opposite of what they claim. two wrongs …. the saying goes..
Chris.
Compare water covered by ice with water not covered by ice.
you get the idea.
And chris ” Acts as an insulator” means what it says. it doesnt say ice IS an insulator, but as you know the combination of ice and the dead air reduces heat transport and acts AS an insulator.
reading is fundamental
Vince Wilkinson says: “The WUWT regurgitation machine is in full swing here, attempting to manipulate public opinion with smoke and mirrors and little else.
Firstly, Taylor has been criticized by the reports authors posted on the Forbes article, for using data that was not controlled in it’s collection. The survey targeted Geophysicists and engineers actively promoting the industry viewpoint.”
What complete BS. As an active geo-scientist, I know absolutely no others (like me) who think CAGW is anything other than a complete crock. As for engineers, I have met a couple of lukewarmers, but the rest are hard core sceptics.
At the end of the day, it boils down to this: if you are a government geo-scientist, you believe in global warming – you have to, or there are serious employment consequences.
If you work in the private sector, you can make up your own mind, which is why there is almost universal scepticism towards global warming.
D.B. Stealey says:
February 17, 2013 at 1:14 pm
For proof that WUWT allows comments by blinkered True Believers, check out the post by Vince Wilkinson above.
Wilkinson doesn’t understand some things. I’m here to help: [etc.]
*
Well put, D.B. You did a far better job than I could have done.
What I would add is that I’ve only known the skeptical side to actually put their science on the table. The alarmists are too busy hiding theirs. WUWT is the best site in the world, IMHO, thick with REAL science, REAL scientists and REAL research. I know where to come to find out the truth AND have a decent discussion. Can anyone say that about the alarmists sites? No, not even close.
You pointed out the facts beautifully and very neatly. Cheers. 🙂
some things here:
*could we please move away from words like “alarmists” and “denialists”, it just comes off as childish and unprofessional
*the study makes it pretty clear its targetting an “skeptical” group, yet they the majority still believed in humans influence
*why such missleading titles?
Steven Mosher says:
February 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Perfectly normal and in fact expected . After large ice losses in the melt season there is a negative feedback. Ice acts as an insulator, so where there is little or no ice, heat is lost rapidly leading to large increases in ice formation ( area )
======
Mosh, can you define this with numbers?
How low was the ice loss? how much more was gained?
Does that amount of ice loss justify this much gain?
Vince Wilkinson..thank you for bringing possible problems with the study to light. Any true skeptic on this board should be encouraged by, not bothered by, your advice to “read beyond the headlines.” Actually looking at the data from such studies and checking whether the conclusions actually follow is at the core of many skeptical posts on this site, so your input is appreciated.
I haven’t had a chance to read referenced study, but could you go into more detail about how the non-controlled nature of the study impacts any of the conclusions cited? What variables do you think should have been controlled that were not?
I should also note that, while your input is appreciated, your tone towards the other readers of this blog is not. Please try to be respectful, even if some responding to you have not been.
The IBD article notes that 75% of climate papers were pro anthropo in 2004 and 46% in 2008. and that was before the gatekeepers who kept skeptical papers out of the main journals and had editors fired for admitting skeptical papers were hit by climategate. There has been a flood of skeptical papers since.
Well, if you had absolutely no chance to think on your own and still had to test consensus position on a particular topic of science, correct methodology requires genuine experts of that very field to be excluded from the poll.
If you wanted to know for example, that homeopathy was science or pseudoscience, so it deserved financial support from government on taxpayer’s money, you’d never ask a group of homeopaths if they believed substances diluted until not a single molecule of the supposed agent remained in them had still beneficial effect, would you? Even if you would and found 98% consensus on this issue among them, it would be utterly meaningless.
On the other hand, asking experts of neighboring disciplines like doctors, pharmacologists, biologists, nurses and the like makes sense.
It is the same with climatology. As soon as the scientific value of the basic paradigm of a field, in this case fitting multiple computational models of high complexity to a single run of a unique physical instance is questioned, it is up to experts of neighboring fields to decide its validity. They may not be able to do their own research in that field, but they do have ample background to understand and evaluate the methods applied in the field in question.
Steven Mosher-
The ice is not acting like an insulator. The air space is acting like an insulator. The snow is acting like an insulator.
“you get the idea.”
“reading is fundamental.”
Perhaps these reflexive snarks are indicative of some sort of climo-coprolalic malady.
More likely that you have been spending too much time over at RC or SS.
Climate Science is settled. There is now no reason to continue to fund research.
Time to remove it from the US federal budget
Mosher: “In short, there is no reason for alarm but neither is their reason to ignore the possible impacts.”
What possible impacts? There needs to be evidence that anything out of the ordinary is happening for there to be impacts which can be attributed to humans.
Mosher: “There isnt enough data to conclude there will be a problem and the converse holds as well. That same lack of data cannot support your certitude that there will be no problem. Ignorance is not bliss.”
Hmm. there’s a chance my car might just explode, even though I have no evidence to support it. I mean, it’s got a 12 gallon tank filled with volatile gasoline. One little spark is all it takes. I’d better not go near it, even though there’s no evidence that it can spontaneously explode. Better not leave your house. There are all sorts of things out there which can kill you. Precautionary Principle, and all that.
Mosher: “Will you see “new weather” nope. You’ll see your grandfathers weather with a different frequency distribution. Like heavier snowfalls in the NH during winter? record snowfalls?
not necessarily. will you see it every year? nope, its weather. But on average, if the hypothesis hold up, you’ll see heavier than normal over long periods. ”
Ok, so on average we haven’t seen an increase in extreme weather, unless you have data to the contrary. Hypothesis falsified, again.
Steven Mosher,
I can’t answer all those strawman arguments, I have things to do!
You didn’t cut & paste the words you were responding to, and I’m not willing to re-read every comment to try and figure out what you mean. All I asked was:
What is the problem with an ice-free Arctic? I can only see benefits, such as sharply reduced shipping costs, less fuel used, and shorter transit times.
I didn’t try to “prove” anything, I didn’t take an extreme position, and I wasn’t arguing. I was just asking.
“We don’t know yet” is not a good answer. It is the old Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy, and it is used to try and prop up “what if” arguments. The fact is that there are no credible scare stories resulting from an ice-free Arctic.
I still see nothing alarming about an ice-free Arctic. It has happened before, and it will happen again. Naturally. And I can find no verifiable, testable scientific evidence showing that human activity has anything at all to do with it.
• • •
Oflot,
H.L. Mencken wrote:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
What else would you call people whose every effort is to alarm the public over an imaginary scare?
• • •
A.D. Everard,
Thanks.
Steven Mosher says:
February 17, 2013 at 1:23 pm
“but the summer ice is on a downtrend.”
======
well yeah, when you start measuring at the coldest winter…
seals, whales, polar bears, birds, etc are all increasing in numbers….they think that’s a good thing
Who decided what was “normal” for Arctic ice in the first place?
=====
“but neither is their reason to ignore the possible impacts.”
=====
so far it’s only the product of an over active imagination……
0.039 – 0.028 = 0.011
Mosher: “Will you see “new weather” nope. You’ll see your grandfathers weather with a different frequency distribution.
===========
Mosh, in your opinion are we going to see the “dust bowl” more or less frequently?
Actually, the Arctic has been ice-free during every interglacial of the past. During MIS-11, both polar areas had large ice free areas.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021513-644725-geoscientists-engineers-dont-believe-in-climate-change.htm#ixzz2LAtp1Qee
During MIS-5, the temps were approx 5.0C warmer than present temps:
http://www.moraymo.us/Raymo+Mitrovica_2012.pdf
“The oxygen isotopes in the ice imply that climate was stable during the last interglacial period, with temperatures 5 °C warmer than today.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7005/abs/nature02805.html
I don’t understand why anyone is getting upset that the Arctic Ice is melting. It is a normal occurrence during inter-glacial periods.
I love it when the likes of Vince Wilkinson come on. That awful squealing noise he made is certain sure proof that we are hitting the targets…again and again and again.
We haven’t won the war yet, but we’re starting to win battles.
Steven Mosher says:
February 17, 2013 at 1:28 pm
And chris ” Acts as an insulator” means what it says. it doesnt say ice IS an insulator, but as you know the combination of ice and the dead air reduces heat transport and acts AS an insulator.
reading is fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, and it suppresses evaporation too… not that there is a lot at arctic temps, but the point is that water in all its phases is remarkably complex. One of the complexities which you seem to dismiss out of hand is that ice extent is not particularly significant. Let’s do the math, shall we?
Salt water doesn’t freeze the same way as fresh water. As even a thin layer of ice forms at surface, salt is ejected out of the ice and into the water below. That water, because of the increased salinity, sinks downward, bringing warmer water to the top…which melts that thin layer of ice. This process continues until all the water in the water column reaches the freezing point.
Now the arctic ocean is on the order of 1 km deep, but I am given to understand by another commenter oon another thread that according to NOAA, due to layering in the arctic ocean, this process only extends to about 100 meters to 150 meters. Let’s use NOAA’s number, in fact for easy figuring let’s use the lower end, 100 meters.
So let’s assume a column of water with a surface area of 1 m^2 and a depth of 100 m for a volume of 100 m^3. Let’s assume that it starts out one degree above the freezing point. How much energy must the column of water lose to freeze the top one cm of water?
Heat capacity of water ~ 4,200 joules per kg per degree
Density of water ~ 1,000 Kg per m^3
Energy lost cooling by 1 degree
= 4,200 * 100 * 1000
=420,000,000 joules
Energy to turn top 1 cm to ice
~ 334 kJ/Kg. = 334,000 joules per Kg
1 cm = 0.01 meters
area of water column above is 1 m^2
volume of 1 cm of water
= 0.01 *1 = 0.01 m^3
Density of water ~ 1000 Kg per m^3
energy to turn 1 cm into ice
=0.01 * 1000 * 334,000
=3,340,000 joules
Now I may have well messed up the math in this, counting up the zeros is not my strong suite. But the great thing about WUWT is when you mess up, someone will let you know in short order.
My point however should be clear. Casually dismissing ice extent as being of less importance that ice thickness simply doesn’t stand up to reason. If the ice thickness was 10 times as much, it would still represent only a 1/10 the energy loss required to cool the water column to the freezing point, and that is for water just a single degree above freezing. It would take about 1.27 meter thick ice to match the energy change of the 100 meter water column below it. If the water had to cool from say 3 degrees above freezing, that would represent very nearly 4 meters of ice to match the energy change in the water. So even thin ice represents massive energy changes.
So sorry, while you are perfectly correct that ice extent tells only a part of the story, it is in fact significant.
Bravo! D.B. Stealey at 1:14pm
I would love to see Josh work a lot of that info into a cartoon.
Perhaps with a generic “Vince Wilkinson” with imploding brain.
And the very day that the antarctic sea ice regresses and goes below “normal” the warmists will point at that as proof that AGW is real.
At some point all you can do is laugh, otherwise the warmists will drag you down with them.
Of course, most readers and commenters here know that “consensus” has little to do with the actual science. So posts such as this are fun because it throws it back in the face of such extreme warmers as commented above. Also, it brings out the “closet” warmers!
Keep it up, WUWT. More, quicker, sooner!