Alarmists Are Incapable Of Learning From Their Own Mistakes

You can’t make this stuff up.  In 2007, they forecast ice-free in 2013, and said it was too conservative. Peter Wadhams from Cambridge jumped on board.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013

Then ice extent went up and Serreze said that they overreacted

“In hindsight, probably too much was read into 2007, and I would take some blame for that,” Serreze said. “There were so many of us that were astounded by what happened, and maybe we read too much into it.”

Tricky Sea Ice Predictions Call for Scientists to Open Their Data | Wired Science | Wired.com

Five years later, they are doing exactly the same thing.

Peter Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, said that a prediction he made in 2008 that the ice could be gone in 2015 because of global warming was looking cautious.

THIS SUMMER?

It could even all go this summer,” he said. “So I think the 2015 date is now looking a bit conservative. We may end up having an ice-free summer before then.”

Arctic summer sea ice might thaw by 2015

How is two to five metres of ice going to melt this summer, with the sun setting for the winter and temperatures below 0C? They can’t even keep their story straight, much less get it right.

h/t to Tom Nelson and Marc Morano

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

100 Responses to Alarmists Are Incapable Of Learning From Their Own Mistakes

  1. Gond says:

    The Arctic is Melting!!

  2. johnmcguire says:

    They need to increase their dosage cause it’s not working . 🙂

  3. omnologos says:

    Like ‘good’ generals, they just keep fighting the previous war, and forecast the past

    • Andy says:

      Well actually to be honest they do examine the past to see why it happened, unlike layman or blogs where it did happen and then it is onto the next thing. Here ice is realtime but for them they have to explain why, here we will soon be talking about increase rate.

      I bet the rate of increase is huge and then it will be commented on to prove a point.

      Andy

  4. kirkmyers says:

    Alarmists like Serreze and Wadhams are unintentionally hilarious. When their predictions of disappearing arctic ice fail to come true, they simply revise and extend their prediction into the future. In 2015, they’ll be predicting an ice-free arctic in 2018. Why would any thinking person take such con artists seriously? They are paid to provide their bosses with data that supports a pre-ordained conclusion — i.e. mankind is warming the planet. Their prime motivation is to keep the “climate change” research money flowing. The only “green” they’re promoting is in the form of the greenback.

    • Andy says:

      What a load of baloney. All this talk of doing it for the money, what are you, a conspiracy theorist? You sound like a prime example of what the Guardian was talking about.

      Of course if the Arctic ice was increasing they wouldn’t be able to make these claims at all, but unfortunately it isn’t is. When it has rebounded for a few years then come back and post something on the matter. Bye.

      Andy

    • Eric Barnes says:

      Hopefully they start learning once they start polishing up their resumes in 2013.

  5. Andy says:

    To be honest a lot of peoples guesses on what is going to happen is very poor, your own and mine included Steve. Just check out what the scientists thought for this year, just check our your own estimates of ice extent that turned out wide of the mark.

    I would have gone for 4.2 this year and that would have been wide of the mark.

    Now hear is my guess for 2013. After 2007 which was an exceptional year, the summer minima walked back to the long term average. Then went down again. Will the same happen in 2013 after this exceptional year? Maybe. But if the ice is that poor maybe it will stick at sub 4 million. It will be interesting to see what happens.

    I’m going to guess 4.1.

    Please note I have no idea if it is all caused by AGW or not, I just know it is very interesting that it is getting smaller in these last few years and it would be nice to have a set in stone reason for it. Until then I have fun just keep watching.

    Andy

    • David Appell says:

      The truth is that no one really knows what will happen next year. Short-term weather fluctuations are imposed on a long-term decline, and it’s the long-term trend that’s significant.

      • Andy says:

        Indeed. Hence why my ball park figure of 4.1. I said about 2 years ago on WUWT that 5 million extent would soon be a thing of the past, and so it seems to be. Will 4 million be a thing of the past also?

        Andy

      • Chicago was buried under a mile of ice 15,000 years ago. The long term trend is that alarmists are getting stupider.

      • David Appell says:

        The long-term trend is that those denying man’s influence in climate change have continually less to work with. But they’ll find something, I’m sure.

      • Julienne Stroeve says:

        I agree, while there is little correlation from one September to the next, and thus it’s impossible to say what the extent will be next September, we can with confidence say we won’t have recovery to conditions in the 1980s/1990s. I feel too that it’s unlikely to have
        a return to above 5 million sq-km next September, but at the same time, natural climate variability can bring about a temporary recovery on top of the long-term decline.

        • Julienne,

          Polar amplification means both poles, yet Antarctic sea ice is increasing.

          Therefore ….. Opposing short term trends at opposite poles are clearly not due to global warming and polar amplification. Making predictions like your seems quite foolhardy.

      • David Appell says:

        > Opposing short term trends at opposite poles are clearly not due to global warming

        That’s not clear at all. The Arctic and Antarctic are very different places and will respond in different ways.

      • mkelly says:

        Mr. Appell if “it’s the long-term trend that’s significant” then should you not be more concerned that the temperature has declined for roughly 8000 years since the height of the Holocene Optimum? The long term trend is down.

      • David Appell says:

        Why stop at the Holocene Optimum? Maybe you should start in the Cretaceous, or perhaps when the Earth was forming… Or maybe just after the Big Bang — had much has it cooled from the Planck temperature to today?

      • gator69 says:

        “How about the ancient period of 1975?” LOL

        Steven, they will never see it, or even hear themselves…

      • mkelly says:

        So you are not capable honest answers. OK, so let’s go back to the big bang there was no ice cap in the Arctic. So having no ice in the Arctic is normal. No let’s do the formation of the earth there was no ice caps then either. So again having no Arctic ice is normal. So Mr. Appell it would seem having no ice cap in the Arctic is normal. There are more billions of years without an ice cap than with.

      • “The Arctic and Antarctic are very different places and will respond in different ways.”

        Possibly true, but that’s not science. When you claim your hypothesis permits any possible outcome, you’re not doing science. Now you’re talking politics, advocacy, ideology or something else.

  6. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Steve, note that MASIE is now at 4.09. It is now 100K above the 2007 minimum recorded in MASIE.

    • That probably includes the Greenland Sea, which is fairly meaningless for evaluating ice “health”

    • “Again, it’s about long-term trend. (I now believe you can spin anything.)”

      So when leading advocates of the global warming/climate change movement shift into discussing ‘extreme weather events’ which invariably excludes looking at long term trends, do you regard that as bullshit? Or are you fully supportive of these new types of claims?

  7. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Steve, Arctic amplification is directly linked to sea ice loss (expanding open water areas that absorb the sun’s energy). Another would be changes in snow cover, which only show a negative trend in spring/summer. Since you are not having the same pronounced changes in the sea ice cover and snow cover over Antarctica, polar amplification has not occurred there yet. So first off you need to understand what causes polar amplification in order to understand the differences between both poles.

    Your logic that opposing short-term trends (and btw, 60 years of sea ice data is enough to detect a significant trend and I wouldn’t consider that short term in terms of increasing human impacts on our environment given the rapid explosion of population in the last 100 years), between the north and south pole proves there is no global warming. The distribution land mass and ocean mass plays an important role how both region will respond. The Arctic was always predicted to respond sooner to any global warming signal.

    • The Arctic did indeed respond to global warming prior to 1950, and then we had an ice age scare.

      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/polar-amplification-4/

      • Julienne Stroeve says:

        Steve, just because the Arctic has been warmer in the past does not remove the possibility that humans are impacting climate. The argument doesn’t hold, it’s invalid logic. Instead you might consider the factors responsible for those past warming events and evaluate if those same factors are responsible today. We already know changes in solar insolation were higher during many of those past warming events than today, so that’s not it. So it must be something else. That’s what climate science aims to do, understand all the factors controlling our climate.

        • Julienne,

          I have yet to hear an explanation of the hot 1930s and the Dust Bowl from anyone touting global warming theory. Until they can explain that, the rest of theory is just idle speculation.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Julienne Stroeve says:
        August 30, 2012 at 6:25 pm
        ” That’s what climate science aims to do, understand all the factors controlling our climate.”
        Climate Scientists are omniscient regarding climate? What’s next? Climate Science infallibility?

    • Glacierman says:

      Antarctica was warming……before O’Donnel, et al was published!

      • It always surprises me that people such as Stroeve can quote something they have read on a blog, or cite some obscure paper making a rather speculative claim, and this morphs into a defining ‘law’ of global warming theory. When the claim doesn’t pan out, this group then move onto some other claim that is consistent with some short term and typically local weather phenomena.

    • Chillville says:

      Correlating stratwarm and the physics involved with boundary conditions are well understood aren’t they!
      The mechanisms in play such as, argon/hydrogen mixes are well understood at 1000hPa, 800hPa, 500hPa, 200hPa right up to 10hPa are well understood aren’t they!
      Mixing C02 with the other constituents at all levels, pressures and temperatures are well known, aren’t they!

  8. rw says:

    Science aside, why is Wadhams saying, “It could even all go this summer” ? (It’s the end of August, for Christ’s sake, and there’s over 3 million km**2 on everybody’s iceometer.) Whatever the explanation of the decrease in extent in recent years, this is OTT. And for a second time he’s telling whoever will listen that his prediction of a melt-out in a couple of years is “conservative”. It sounds to me like a case of ‘hope for change’. And this kind of thing is characteristic of the whole AGW episode.

  9. omnologos says:

    My informed guess is that were the ice to be in excess in the Arctic and in decline in Antarctica, that would be seen as proof of global warming. Likewise if the two poles were losing or even gaining ice at the same rate. IOW everything the ice does is proof of GW, at least for some people.

    As we sadly all know, nothing we can write will make the likes of Appell change their mind, hence any discussion is pointless.

    As for Julienne Strove, before even considering any exchange I would like to know what if anything would be evidence for her of AGW or even CAGW, in the sense that were recent trends of that ‘anything’ to reverse, AGW/CAGW would be disproven. Otherwise, like I said, it’s all about forecasting the past, extending the most recent trends, telling people at 5am it’s going to be a lot less darker, etc etc.

    • Glacierman says:

      Of course. They already “know the answer”. Everything from here on out is just spinning everything into the theory.

  10. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Will, I don’t get my science facts from blogs, instead I read the scientific papers. What obscure paper are you talking about?

    • What do you think starts the process of polar amplification? No, not variable sea ice. Not albedo, etc. Here is the answer: temperature increase. Yes, Antarctica and the Arctic are very different places. (I.e., Antarctica is not subject to black carbon pollution from China and other parts of the world that decrease albedo.) But you can’t just ignore the explanation for the lack of warming in Antarctica by declaring that the places are “different” or science is “complex”. You need to explain *why* only half your claim has worked out. And that requires you to introduce further ad hoc theories. I’m not against ad hoc explanations as such, but you should at least admit that the best explanations you can offer are at best ad hoc. Hand waving by itself is not sufficient.

      • Julienne Stroeve says:

        Will, if you will read papers on Arctic amplification I’m happy to point them out to you. You don’t seem to understand why the polar regions are expected to warm faster than the rest of the planet, nor how geography impacts the spatial pattern of the amplified warming. Seems you’re the one doing the hand waving, I have data and numerous publications that show your reasoning is incorrect.

    • Blah blah blah. I can claim that you don’t know what you are talking about either, then we are both on an equal footing. More factual information, less effort spent on claiming your opponent is stupid would tend to impress more.

    • Glacierman says:

      Julienne Stroeve says: August 30, 2012 at 9:27 pm

      “Will, I don’t get my science facts from blogs, instead I read the scientific papers.”

      Have you read this one?:
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

      “An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2” The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures.”

      Since you already proved what is causing polar amplification, and this paper is in direct contrast, I would be interested in hearing where the authors went wrong.

  11. Terra Incognita says:

    Steve, when, through the scientific process, a correction is made you call it a flip flop. In any case this is pure projection on your part. I know what many will fail to learn when the ever thickening ice cap (of the imagination) turns to ice cubes 10 years from now.

  12. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Omnologos,
    scientific evidence from a wide array of independent observations, including increases in global surface, tropospheric air and ocean temperatures, retreat of sea ice, glaciers, etc. lead to the conclusion that warming of the climate system is happening (hopefully you agree at least on this basic evidence). Note that warming from GHGs should show a vertical structure that consists of warming in the troposphere and cooling above it, in the stratosphere. Changes in the sun’s energy would warm the upper stratosphere and mesosphere, which is in clear contrast with observations.

    So the fact that observations show warming then needs an explanation as to why our planet is warming. A number of factors can contribute to this warming. The climate generates local and regional variations internally, which we experience as weather and as phenomena such as El/La Nino/a events that can last for months or seasons, or in the case of the AMO or the PDO, on time-scales of decades. But climate also varies in response to external factors such as changes in the amount of solar energy received, or changes in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that absorb some of the energy that would normally be emitted out to space, or changes in the amount of aerosol in the atmosphere, etc.

    Obviously it’s not easy to separate out the internal variability from the external forcing in the observations since both are acting on our climate system at the same time.

    Climate models can be useful tools for investigating these component because they explicitly calculate the effect of changes in energy balance of the climate, which is the average weather, and separates that from long-term changes due to external forcings. They show (whether or not you want to believe their results) that after you put in the solar output, volcanic activity, aerosols, GHGs, into the models that they can reproduce the 20th/21st century warming signal (and they don’t do this if you don’t put in these observed variables). furthermore, natural forcing alone would have suggested a cooling during the second half of the 20th century, something that didn’t occur.

    I would expect that warming from increasing GHGs should be interrupted by cooling effects of aerosol changes, episodic volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, internal climate variability.

    • Yes we all familiar with the overall claim. Sceptics have de constructed all the points you’ve raised over and over again but it doesn’t matter. You have faith. Good for you. Sceptics are not so confident as you, however.

      • Don Sutherland says:

        To date, those who argue against AGW have yet to propose a natural mechanism that could reproduce the recent climate trend, especially from the mid-20th century to the present, as well as can be done when anthropogenic forcing is added to the mix of the natural forcings. If an anthropogenic role is not a valid explanation, then what is the natural mechanism that is responsible and what was the state of that mechanism prior to the mid-20th century when the natural forcings explained much more of the climate trends? That’s the Achilles Heel of those who advance the anti-AGW position. They declare that AGW isn’t real, yet they provide no alternative mechanism that could explain recent climate trends as well as AGW does.

      • That’s a logical fallacy called ‘argument from ignorance.’ E.g., “I can’t think of anything else that fussy image in the picture might be, so it must be a UFO.” Yes, your logic is really that poor.

        If I make a positive claim I need to defend it. It’s not my job to *debunk* your claim. Although sceptics do debunk such claims from time to time, and in doing so the pay cheques we receive from Exxon Mobil are not really as large as you might think. 😉

      • Rob says:

        “To date, those who argue against AGW have yet to propose a natural mechanism that could reproduce the recent climate trend, especially from the mid-20th century to the present”

        Nonsense. PDO/AMO explain it much better than CO2. But it doesn’t matter since the burden is on the alarmists to prove that recent climate is not within the realm of natural probability and they have failed miserably at that.

    • Ben says:

      Julienne,

      Thanks for the long detailed reply. Do you know what else we find as glaciers retreat? Tree stumps. Since you are an avid reader of the scientific papers, what is the explanation? These tree stumps date from 1500-8000 years BP.

      Does this not imply that trees grew, glaciers advanced, trees died, glaciers retreated? Do you think some skeptic placed them there?

      If this is the warmest it has ever been, then how did treeline advance further north in the past than today?

      • Julienne Stroeve says:

        Ben, I have never said it is now warmer than it has ever been. Of course it has been warmer in the past. It’s the mechanisms behind these warming events that is important to try to understand. A lot of work has gone into fingerprinting studies – so called optimal fingerprint approaches that have shown that natural forcing alone is unlikely to explain the warming of the past fifty years since the spatial pattern of temperature change in time and space that is expected from solar and volcanic forcing combined does not match the observed pattern. This analysis has further suggested that greenhouse gas forcing explains at least half of the observed warming at a very high level of statistical significant (see: Hasselmann, 1979 – on the signal to noise problem in atmospheric studies, Meterology of Tropical Oceans; Allen and Tett, 1999 – checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting, Climate Dynamics; Stott et al., 2010 – detection and attribution of climate change: a regional perspective, Climate Change; Kiehl, 2007 – 20th century climate model response and sensitivity, GRL)

      • gator69 says:

        “…so called optimal fingerprint approaches that have shown that natural forcing alone is unlikely to explain the warming of the past fifty years…”

        Absolute rubbish! How does one model the Julienne?

        “2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing”

        When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing of AR4. That’s over 80% of IDENTIFIED forcings that you guys admit you know virtually nothing about. It is not possible to build a model that does anything useful with less than 20% of the mechanisms even remotely understood. You are building models that meet you bias, and that is all.

        You have zero credibility when you claim anything other than ‘I don’t know’.

      • Don Sutherland says:

        Gator69,

        What evidence do you have to support the claim that the optimal fingerprinting studies are erroneous? Even as uncertainties exist, the tools utilized can still provide useful information in terms of detection and attribution.

      • gator69 says:

        Don, are you that stupid?

        I am not.

        See above. Repeat as necessary to clear your head of rubbish.

      • Don Sutherland says:

        Gator69,

        One does not require perfect or complete information before one can make any kind of attribution. The statistical framework is sufficiently robust to attribute a share of the global temperature trend and declining Arctic summer sea ice to anthropogenic forcing.

        The fact that models that utilize natural and anthropogenic forcings decisively outperform those that rely strictly on natural forcings when it comes to the temperature and Arctic sea ice trends suggests that the anthropogenic variable adds value. It helps explain those trends. That Arctic amplification is one of the more prominent outcomes expected from AGW and that such amplification can now be statistically detected in the fall offers additional evidence of AGW. One might not be able to precisely quantify what share of the warming and ice extent trends are driven being AGW, but there’s enough evidence to conclude that it is not insignificant.

        Finally, the new paper on Arctic sea ice extent written by Dr. Stroeve, et al., (published in the August 25, 2012 edition of Geophysical Research Letters) contains a number of findings, two of which are at least somewhat relevant here:

        1. Based on the CMIP5, the estimated anthropogenic contribution ranges from 52% to 67% (+/- 1σ from the ensemble mean of around 60%). The mean figure is “based on the assumption that the model simulations are members of the same distribution and that we have enough members to resolve the distribution” but that “assumption does not exactly hold since some models better represent the climate system than others.”
        2. The impact of external anthropogenic forcing is “becoming increasingly clear in both the observations and model studies.”

        Given that there is credible evidence to support the argument of an anthropogenic role, “I don’t know” is not a valid answer when it comes to whether there is such a role.

      • gator69 says:

        Don, I have a panel of experts who are ready to say, with 97% certainty, that you either are incompetent or in need of immediate brain surgery. In my many years of schooling I have received about 20% of the knowledge necessary to perform this emergency brain surgery right now, as far as I know.

        Ready?.

      • Don Sutherland says:

        Gator69,

        Here’s a link that provides some basic details about climate attribution: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/outreach/resources/handouts/attribution_final.pdf

      • gator69 says:

        Thanks for making a fool of yourself Don. I am more than familiar with the hand waving, and the facts…

        “2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing”

        When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing of AR4. That’s over 80% of IDENTIFIED forcings that you guys admit you know virtually nothing about. It is not possible to build a model that does anything useful with less than 20% of the mechanisms even remotely understood. You are building models that meet you bias, and that is all.

        You have zero credibility when you claim anything other than ‘I don’t know’.

        Goodnight Don! 🙂

  13. Don Sutherland says:

    It is a truly sad commentary to witness the lack of respect that is accorded the scientists who generously share their insights with this blog’s readers. The lack of willingness among some to make a good faith effort to listen to and consider the scientists’ points is one thing. The inadequate respect is quite another.

    At present, a harsh anti-science atmosphere prevails here. Judgment is rendered almost solely on the basis of whether the scientists’ contributions conform to the prevailing belief of many here. In the rush to judgment, ideological faith trumps scientific evidence, belief supersedes reason, suspicion displaces trust, and nuance is twisted into exaggeration.

    In one case, one of the scientists patiently explained, “That’s what climate science aims to do, understand all the factors controlling our climate.” That was an explanation of what climate science—indeed any of the sciences—seeks to do.

    She was rebuked. “Climate Scientists are omniscient regarding climate? What’s next? Climate Science infallibility?” the reader charged.

    Aside from the rude and exaggerated nature of the reply, that response is also illogical and anti-intellectual. It is illogical, because if climate scientists were “omniscient,” there would be no need for them to try to understand the factors controlling climate. They would already have a complete understanding. It is anti-intellectual, because the quest for knowledge is cynically perverted into a pursuit of “infallibility.”

    In terms of the science, she correctly pointed out that “because the Arctic has been warmer in the past does not remove the possibility that humans are impacting climate.” Her point was all but ignored.

    An implicit axiom that there is “nothing new under the sun” prevails. Under that static narrow perspective, there is an unyielding faith that can be stated as follows: All past climatic change was driven by factors other than human activities, therefore human activities cannot influence climate.

    But if one looks more closely, that position is a fallacy in a dynamic world. If one considers just the science, the argument for an anthropogenic role is strong. First, the natural forcings (solar, volcanoes, orbital fluctuations) that explained earlier climatic trends are unable to adequately represent recent climatic trends (rising global temperature and declining summer Arctic sea ice). Were natural forcings alone driving the earth’s climate, there should have been a global cooling along with increasing Arctic summer ice area and extent in recent decades. Second, the global temperature trend is not the result of a transfer of heat from one part of the earth’s climate system to another (as results from the oceanic cycles i.e., ENSO, PDO, and AMO). Instead, one finds oceanic heat content, surface temperatures, and lower tropospheric temperatures increasing simultaneously. That simultaneous warming indicates that energy is being added to the earth’s climate system. That net addition of energy cannot be explained by the natural forcings. Third, the paleoclimate record showing periods of high temperatures corresponding with periods of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations is consistent with the “greenhouse effect.” Although humans were not around for almost all of the paleoclimate record when large amounts of CO2 were previously released into the atmosphere, that does not mean that humans are not capable of transferring CO2 from underground storage into the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels is the principal mechanism for that transfer. Furthermore, even as human emissions are relatively small compared to all other sources of CO2, it is the marginal contribution from human activities that has led to CO2 emissions persistently exceeding CO2 absorption. That marginal contribution is boosting the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Fourth, if one gives consideration to the anthropogenic forcing, one can reasonably model the recent climate trends and explain the earth’s energy imbalance. That does not mean that there is not some residual uncertainty e.g., as it relates to feedbacks, but it does mean that barring the identification of some alternative natural mechanism that can substitute for the anthropogenic forcing with similar or better explanatory power, the anthropogenic forcing is the best available explanation.

    None of those factors are adequately considered by the majority of this blog’s readers. That lack of consideration is not surprising. Faith is simply a question of whether one believes or whether one does not. Faith does not depend on logic for its existence nor empirical evidence to be sustained.

    Consequently, when the faith that humanity cannot influence the climate is confronted with scientific insight and evidence, one witnesses an almost continual “dialogue of the deaf.” Even as that is the case, the scientists deserve at least a measure of courtesy and respect. Hopefully, they will receive such courtesy in the future.

    • I only read the first paragraph of your response, then I started to fall asleep… However, I would comment that is not anti-scientific to be sceptical. Scepticism is the foundation of science. Yes, some scepticism is unfounded or misguided, but that is par for the course. Climate/environmental science is a field in its infancy. Extraordinary claims are made in this field all the time by major players. If these people deserve to be ‘respected’ as you say, they should be conservative in their claims and less confident in their speculations.

    • It is a truly sad commentary to witness the lack of respect that is accorded the scientists who generously share their insights with this blog’s readers.

      There is nothing sad at all, however, about a grown man claiming that certain scientists are due some form of worship. Scientists answering simple questions with, “Look at the research.” aren’t much of scientists, honestly. If you can’t summarize what you’ve read, you need to read it again.

      • Don Sutherland says:

        Stark Dickflüssig,

        No one is suggesting scientists or anyone else is owed “worship.” That’s an example of exaggeration that is, unfortunately, all too common here. I am suggesting a far more modest standard of treating the scientists (and all others for that matter) with a degree of courtesy and respect. Courtesy and respect are not “worship.”

        Finally, a number of the scientists who have posted here i.e., Dr. Meier, Dr. Stroeve, etc., have done far more than direct people to read the literature. Your assessment is not a fair one. They have offered explanations e.g., in one of her comments to Mr. Goddard’s blog entry to which we have been responding, Dr. Stroeve discussed the link between Arctic Amplification and declining summer ice extent. Any references to the scientific literature are also helpful, because it allows one an opportunity to explore content in even greater detail. There’s a lot of cutting edge research being published.

    • Me says:

      Courtesy and respect are earned, not a given or deserved. So in saying that I guess they get what they earned, you know, the measure of courtesy and respect you say they deserve. 😆

  14. A further comment, “engagement with sceptics” does not simply involve repeating all the reasons why you have convinced yourself that your hypothesis is the bees knees. Especially when sceptics have criticised all of those claims — exhaustively. Maybe some of those criticisms are valid or maybe they are misguided. What these researchers need to do is start dealing with those criticisms head on. While they continue to duck them, or misdirect, or cherry pick, or put up straw men (or for that matter continue to pretend they understand vastly more than they really do) then it remains difficult to take this group seriously.

    • Don Sutherland says:

      With all due respect, many of the researchers are trying to address the public’s questions. Over here, Dr. Stroeve is an example. She addresses questions/arguments with scientific explanations, some of which are at the forefront of the field and reflect the latest literature. She does so in spite of a intensive and productive research efforts.

      • There is no point coming to a sceptical web site and ignoring the criticisms of the sceptics and just repeating your view point. With all due respect, that’s a doppy way to deal with the issue. Case in point, in the exchange above Stroeve had a chance to attempt to explain why Antarctica has cooled for the last 30 years in the context of the theory she endorses. Instead she opted to call me, in effect, ignorant. Another opportunity to engage lost, eh?

  15. Chillville says:

    The science is settled, said the madman…
    Correlating stratwarm and the physics involved with boundary conditions are well understood aren’t they!
    The mechanisms in play such as, argon/hydrogen mixes are well understood at 1000hPa, 800hPa, 500hPa, 200hPa right up to 10hPa are well understood aren’t they!
    Mixing C02 with the other constituents at all levels, pressures and temperatures are well known, aren’t they!

  16. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Will, I am more than happy to send you a list of publications. What I’ve often encountered when doing that is that no one will bother to read up on the science. I did recently have a skeptic on WUWT ask for a copy of my recent GRL paper that compares the observations to the models that will be used in the next IPCC report and I was happy to share the publication with him. I am arguing from a point of first hand analysis of the data, published results, not only from my work, but from the work of others. I think skeptics do themselves a great disservice by not being willing to actually read the papers out there, but instead trust whatever they read on a blog.
    I similarly wouldn’t trust the media reports, they often only get part of the story correct. Going to the actual papers – many of which are written in a way so that a broader audience can understand them – such as papers in GRL or Nature or Science – is a great way to increase you knowledge of what is happening in the climate system. You have yet to point to a publication that supports your view that sea ice loss and/or snow cover loss does not impact arctic amplification.
    For papers that provide evidence that sea ice loss is directly linked to arctic amplification you can
    start here:
    Holland, M.M., and C.M. Bitz, Polar amplification of climate change in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Clim. Dyn., 21, 221–232,2003.
    Manabe, S. and R.J. Stouffer, Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 85, 5529–5554, 1980.
    Alexander, M. A., R. Tomas, C. Deser, and D. M. Lawrence (2010), The atmospheric response to projected terrestrial snow changes in the late 21st century, J. Clim., 23, 6430–6437, doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3899.1.
    Alexeev, V. A., P. L. Langen, and J. R. Bates (2005), Polar amplification of surface warming on an aquaplanet in ghost forcing experiments without sea ice feedbacks, Clim. Dyn., 24, 655–666, doi:10.1007/s00382-005-0018-3.
    Blüthgen, J., R. Gerdes, and M. Werner (2012), Atmospheric response to the extreme Arctic sea ice conditions in 2007, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L02707, doi:10.1029/2011GL050486
    Budikova, D. (2009), Role of Arctic sea ice in global atmospheric circulation: A review, Global Planet. Change, 68(3), 149–163, doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2009.04.001
    Deser, C., R. Tomas, M. Alexander, and D. Lawrence (2010), The seasonal atmospheric response to projected Arctic sea ice loss in the late 21st century, J. Clim., 23, 333–351, doi:10.1175/2009JCLI3053.1
    Overland, J. E., and M. Wang (2010), Large-scale atmospheric circulation changes are associated with the recent loss of Arctic sea ice, Tellus, Ser. A, 62, 1–9, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0870.2009.00421.x
    Screen, J. A., and I. Simmonds (2010), The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification, Nature, 464, 1334–1337, doi:10.1038/nature09051
    Serreze, M. C., A. P. Barrett, J. C. Stroeve, D. N. Kindig, and M. M. Holland (2009), The emergence of surface-based Arctic amplification, Cryosphere, 3, 11–19, doi:10.5194/tc-3-11-2009
    Stroeve, J. C., M. C. Serreze, M. M. Holland, J. E. Kay, J. Maslanik, and A. P. Barrett (2012), The Arctic’s rapidly shrinking sea ice cover: A research synthesis, Clim. Change, 110, 1005–1027, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0101-1

    • Stroeve the question put to you which you have repeatedly ducked, is what is your explanation for 30 years of Antarctic cooling? As expected, a response that misdirects.

      • Julienne Stroeve says:

        Will, I understood from your comments that you didn’t understand what causes Arctic amplification. Thus, I tried to point out the reason why the Arctic is showing amplified warming – the loss of ice/snow allows more solar radiation to be absorbed by the ocean/land – in turn leading to warmer temperatures. That is not happening in Antarctica and thus I would not expect to see amplified warming (though it is happening on the West Antarctic peninsula). I will also give you a list of publications if you like about the influences on Antarctic climate. Since you accuse me of simply repeating what I read on a blog, I would prefer you actually read the papers yourself. If you are interested, I will provide you with a list. Much has been written about the differences between both poles and the influence of the southern ocean on Antarctica’s climate, as well as how the changes in the Antarctic Oscillation are impacting the sea ice, how some of this appears to be linked to declines in ozone over the continent. etc.

      • Yes maybe it’s got to do with circulation patterns, UV, ozone hole, whatever people can think up. I’ve looked closely at these papers and they are highly speculative with very few citations to back up those speculations. Why not just be honest and admit nobody knows? Why the pretence that you understand things you don’t understand? Readers work this out anyway, given the vagueness of your response and how much effort was required to extract even this vague response from you.

    • Blade says:

      Great, a wall of “science” papers that made it through peer pal-review. No wonder you’re all in with the AGW hoax, if it’s on the internet in a paper it must be true.

      I don’t suppose any of the papers document the viability of comparing identical calendar days in different years? I’d hate to think you thought that was a legitimate scientific methodology all by yourself when you did here

      “The extent in MASIE is now 4.26. At the same date in 2007 it was 5.01.”

    • Blade says:

      [RESUBMIT! what, a single link gets nailed by WordPress now?]

      Great, a wall of “science” papers that made it through peer pal-review. No wonder you’re all in with the AGW hoax, if it’s on the internet in a paper it must be true.

      I don’t suppose any of the papers document the viability of comparing identical calendar days in different years? I’d hate to think you thought that was a legitimate scientific methodology all by yourself when you did here: (stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/scientist-shock-news-arctic-to-be-ice-free-next-year)

      “The extent in MASIE is now 4.26. At the same date in 2007 it was 5.01.”

      • Don Sutherland says:

        The gap between 2012 and the previous record year of 2007 is so enormous that Dr. Stroeve’s comparison puts things into perspective. The gap is nearly 740,000 sq. km. and more than 2.5 sigma below the 2003-11 average for 8/30. The overall point is that 2012 has an exceptionally low figure at this point in time–aside from its being a record–that stands out.

      • Blade says:

        “Dr. Stroeve’s comparison puts things into perspective.”

        That’s your rationale? You had your chance there to echo what I said, a self-evident truth, specifically criticizing her ignorant or intentionally misleading statement …

        “The extent in MASIE is now 4.26. At the same date in 2007 it was 5.01.”

        … And what do you? The right thing? Nope. You bail, take a pass, punt, obfuscate, justifying her error or blatant lie. That’s the wrong thing to do.

        There is no correlation, no significance, no reason to offer that date comparison. I suspect you know this but as an AGW cultist your strong faith trumps rationality and honesty.

        P.S. Hey Don, right before Halloween 2011 we caught a devastating blizzard, the last time that happened was ages ago. So what, Ice age coming?.

    • Blade says:

      [RESUBMIT-2! holy crap WordPress sucks. Even a stripped link gets nailed by WordPress now!]

      Great, a wall of “science” papers that made it through peer pal-review. No wonder you’re all in with the AGW hoax, if it’s on the internet in a paper it must be true.

      I don’t suppose any of the papers document the viability of comparing identical calendar days in different years? I’d hate to think you thought that was a legitimate scientific methodology all by yourself when you did here: (stevengoddard(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2012/08/29/scientist-shock-news-arctic-to-be-ice-free-next-year)

      “The extent in MASIE is now 4.26. At the same date in 2007 it was 5.01.”

      Admit it, you and Serreze are just playing climate good cop, bad cop!

      • Don Sutherland says:

        Peer review is rigorous. Dismissing peer review as lacking credibility demeans the work of those who conducted the research and shared their findings with the scientific community.

      • Blade says:

        “Dismissing peer review as lacking credibility demeans the work of those who conducted the research and shared their findings with the scientific community.”

        Impossible. If there are honest brokers reviewing a particular paper, nothing I say will demean or even affect their work. That’s the thing about being honest and objective, you are impervious to incorrect criticism. But if during the review period they wheel and deal because of peer pressure from other reviewers, or 3rd party pressure as Climategate showed, then their innocence is gone faster than a $20 prostitute’s. With strong emphasis on prostitute.

        Nonetheless, pal-review is overwhelmed by AGW agenda driven pseudo-scientists. And it is they that stain the image of the objective parties. The ones that stand strong are to be commended, unfortunately the rest are a mere phone call away from being reminded of their grant renewal or pet project support or other pressure.

        There are bad apples and sometimes one or more bad apples can spoil the bunch. What you’re doing is ignoring the bad apples, letting them off the hook by giving them cover behind the good ones. Congratulations, you are being so very scientific. Not.

      • gator69 says:

        There are plenty of examples of why the peer review process ALSO needs a reformation, and this website illustrates some of these, erm, shortcomings…

        http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/20-more-retractions-for-scientist-who-made-up-email-addresses-so-he-could-review-his-own-papers/

        Clean up the process and we will have nothing to say. Watchdogs are not the problem.

      • rw says:

        If peer review in climatology is rigorous, why did that Gergis et al paper sail through? And what about the paper on the Texas heat wave (in BAMS) that was criticized severely by C. Maas? And what about the Steig et al paper on rising temperatures in Western Antarctica? AND (drumroll) what about the infamous hockey stick paper (with the enjambed graph that shows global temperatures going through the roof and which is now 14 years old)????

      • “Peer review is rigorous. Dismissing peer review as lacking credibility demeans the work of those who conducted the research and shared their findings with the scientific community.”

        “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

        http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

    • Blade says:

      (RESUBMIT-3! to Steve, can you find out what is tripping the WordPress filter in the last three posts please!)

      Great, a wall of “science” papers that made it through peer pal-review. No wonder you’re all in with the AGW hoax, if it’s on the internet in a paper it must be true.

      I don’t suppose any of the papers document the viability of comparing identical calendar days in different years? I’d hate to think you thought that was a legitimate scientific methodology all by yourself when you did in that other thread: “scientist-shock-news-arctic-to-be-ice-free-next-year”

      “The extent in MASIE is now 4.26. At the same date in 2007 it was 5.01.”

      Admit it Julienne, you and Serreze are just playing climate good cop, bad cop!

      • Blade says:

        Steve, all the posts have now appeared! Please feel free to delete the first three above this if you wish!

        Any idea what is going on?

      • Blade says:

        Steve, cancel that request about deleting the extra posts above this please.

        Don the genius couldn’t figure out which “reply” to click on (the last one Don) so they are all frickin in play now.

        Thanks.

  17. Billy in NZ says:

    Why should I have any respect for the climate scientists when they keep labeling me a DENIER.And they are still doing it.Some of them are starting to realize they have overstepped the mark on many occasions,and have been proven so wrong so often.

  18. Climate Nemesis says:

    Statements about 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum from Steven Goddard posted in the thread to his July 2012 posting “My Arctic Forecasts”:

    – I bet that DMI extent is above 2007
    – The odds of ending below 2007 are pretty close to zero.
    – There isn`t a snowballs chance in hell that either area or extent will end below 2007.

    • I learned. – Passive microwave sensors are crap.

      • Climate Nemesis says:

        Thank you for this clarification, but why are passive microwave sensor data then used in this post from August 30, 2012:

        Mark Serreze – Climate Buffoon Of The Week

        Should this post, and all the many, many other sea ice posts on Real Science that are based on such “crap data” not be flagged?
        Maybe a simple disclaimer just stating that the following post should now be ignored…

      • Blade says:

        So Climate Nemesis, you are calling Steve a hypocrite because he criticizes the shortcomings of the passive microwave method yet he shows a plot from one? That makes no sense at all and identifies you as completely without logic.

        Even old or failing equipment is still capable of displaying the existence of an anomaly. It clearly shows an event during the storm’s timeframe. For you to be making any sense *you* would have to now be agreeing with his original criticism, that “Passive microwave sensors are crap” and are prepared to say that the event seen on the plot is not really there! Doh. Put another way, remember Hubble without the mirror corrections? Even with blurry vision if it were aiming at the same place over a period of time it would still be able to record the existence of an anomaly! You apparently do not realize the concept that equipment with consistent error can still be useful.

        Anyway, anyone can see your agenda is just searching for references to data derived from passive radar methods and then cut and paste your feeble propaganda attempt.

        So why don’t you put your big-boy pants on and explain what’s in it for you? What would cause you to troll around bottom-posting stale threads in this manner? I find it hard to believe that Mark Serreze has groupies who are this twisted and desperate. Wouldn’t your time be more satisfyingly spent twittering about President DingleBarry or Lindsey Lohan?

        “Go be a moron somewhere else.”

        Clearly he got that reference right if you do not even know what hypocrisy is!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s