BBO Discussion Forums: Climate change - BBO Discussion Forums

As an aside, concerning the motivations and backing for those that present arguments both for and against, Roger Pielke has this to say:

Roger Pielke, Jr.Wed Mar 18, 06:40:00 AM MDT
Another in-your-face-example of undisclosed COI in the geosciences.

Over at Real Climate, Kerry Emanuel of MIT, has a post up with his views on tropical cyclones and climate change. Emanuel doesn't cite the IPCC, but what he reports is pretty much consistent with the AR5 (trends inconclusive, expected changes in the future, etc.).
http://www.realclima...climate-change/

Here I am not discussing the science presented by Kerry, but instead, I note this passage:

"When a 100-year event becomes a 50-year event, it may take a few destructive hits before we adapt to the new reality. This is of particular concern with tropical cyclones, where the application of existing damage models to projected changes in tropical cyclone activity predict large increases in damage, as documented, for example, in the recent Risky Business report commissioned by Michael Bloomberg, Hank Paulson, and Thomas Steyer."

What Emanuel does not say is that he was in fact the one commissioned by Steyer et al. to produce the scary scenarios in the report (which are completely at odds with IPCC AR5 and KE's own published academic work - I've explored this is some detail).

Thus, Emanuel is (a) self-citing in stealth fashion, and (b) failing to disclose a big COI.

Two big non-nos in science, but which in the climate world get a free pass if you are perceived to be on the "right side." Another day in climate science.

PassedOut, on 2015-March-18, 09:29, said:

So, by taking all the "scariest" scenarios and looking at maximum values, they come up with about 75 cm of SLR by 2100. At current rates (3mm/yr) we would have 85x3=255 or 25.5 cm with NO acceleration. So they have concluded that we MIGHT get an additional average of about 50 cm of SLR under "high emission scenarios". This is 3 times the current rate, which means about 9mm/yr (at least!) henceforward. This seems reasonable, (requiring swift action at great cost...) does it?

Al_U_Card, on 2015-March-18, 09:33, said:

As usual, Al is getting basic facts wrong. (See, for all Al's talk about being an open minded skeptic, he actually places blind faith in a set of highly unreliable sources)

The report in question can be downloaded from

http://www.google.co....88198703,d.eXY)

If you look at the report, you will see that Emanuel served as a reviewer on the report and that the report cited some of Emanuel's work.

This is very different from Al's and Pieke's claim that Emanuel was paid to create this report and committed an ethical lapse in failing to disclose this fact.

As usual, in climastrology, conflicts of interest are "okay" as long as you play ball... sure they are, no matter how far-fetched and alarmist the meme....the more the better it seems. Got to keep the po'folk afraid and the 3rd world in its energy dirth. Unconscionable.

I am beginning to tire of all the claims that some scientist is in part of some government conspiracy to propagate climate alarmism or is in the pay of big oil deniers. Let the scientific work be judged on its own merits. Most of the scientifuc research resides in between these two political extremist groups, such that neither truly represents reality.

Could either of the extreme scenarios occur? Sure, science does not exclude any possibility. They are just less probable than others.

Daniel1960, on 2015-March-18, 09:28, said:

Really? I hadn't been aware of that. Could you link to a paper supporting that conclusion?

Looked around this evening to find some evidence that ice sheet melting from Greenland and Antarctica is now less likely than had been predicted to provide significant contributions to sea level rise. Found some material on both, but not that:

Quote

Quote

Didn't find support for Daniel1960's statement, though, and am truly interested in seeing what he offers in support.

I thought the past 500 posts on this topic showed that anything regarding the sea data was basic crap.

We just do not have good data....?

to be honest I thought this was the problem with entire thread...we just have crap data.

regardless of lack of data we have enough information to be concerned.

We have enough information that there is human global warming and we are concerned.

Some want to have drastic econ results ...some do not.

The issue has become more econ ...less other crap

-----------------------


Of course all at the end is politics....all politics.

Antarctica is essential three different regions; West Antarctica (most of the recent published research), East Antarctica (by far the largest), and the peninsula. Much work was done on the warming of the Antarctic peninsula during the 2000s, detailing melting and warming. This did occur, but is a minor component. More work was done (as Passed Out showed) concerning the West Antarctic ice sheet, showing a small decrease in total ice mass. Less work has been reported on the larger, more remote East Antarctic ice sheet (as visible in your picture). This ice sheet drawfs the West Antarctic ice sheet, and has been growing during the same time that West Antarctica has been shrinking. High uncertainties still exist in these ice mass estimates, and contributions to sea ice rise are minimal (Williams estimated 0.16 mm/yr).

http://www.sciencedi...012821X14005068
http://www.sciencedi...012821X13005797

Recent research shows "that the stability of the largest ice cap on earth is influenced by the presence of sea ice in the oceans that surround Antarctica." The sea ice surrounding Antarctica has been increasing for over three decades, suggesting greater stability in the greater Antarctic ice sheets.

http://www.scienceda...50203094326.htm
https://nsidc.org/cr...tc/sea_ice.html

Daniel1960, on 2015-March-19, 06:18, said:

OK this is off topic and probably dumb sounding, but .. how does one determine which is the east or west side of a continent on the south pole?

Daniel1960, on 2015-March-19, 06:18, said:

Not at all. The expanding sea ice results from the accelerating fresh-water discharge from the melting Antarctic ice sheets.

Fresh water is lighter than salt water. Fresh water freezes at 0C while salt sea water freezes at -1.6C. The fresh water melt runs over the salt water and freezes more quickly, resulting in the expanding extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica.

As the melting of the Antarctic ice sheets continues to accelerate, we'll see more of this expansion.

billw55, on 2015-March-19, 06:40, said:

Yes, this is a good question. Technically, from the South Pole, everything is north.

Looking at the map that PassedOut posted yesterday, the top of the picture is the prime meridian, while the bottom is the international date line. The right is east, as it lies south of Africa and Australia, and the left is west, being near South America. By convention, the continent is divided along the mountain ridge that runs from the bottom towards the upper left. The smaller, lower elevation area to the left, which includes both the Ross and Ronne ice shelves, is called West Antarctica, while the larger, higher elevation area to the right is designated East Antarctica.

Daniel1960, on 2015-March-19, 06:18, said:

Okay, I looked at this reference you provided: Revisiting GRACE Antarctic ice mass trends and accelerations considering autocorrelation

Quote

While, as you say, this shows the East increasing and the West decreasing, the center graphic shows an accelerating decrease of ice mass over the continent as a whole. How does this acceleration square with your statement that significant contributions to sea level rise are becoming less likely? Isn't it just the opposite?

PassedOut, on 2015-March-19, 08:24, said:

When compared to previous reports, which claimed much higher melt rates and acceleration, then yes, this shows that it is less likely. Previous estimates placed the mass balance at a loss of 200-300 Gt annually. The following shows how more recent analyses compared to previous:

http://www.antarctic...e-mass-balance/

Delving further into the work, their calculated acceleration rate of sea level rise amounted to 0.04 mm /yr2 +/- 0.03, not inlcuding GIA model error bounds. This work calculated that the mass loss was 58 Gt/yr +/- 16. The range in other research is from a loss of 135 Gt to a gain of 112 Gt, with a median value around a loss of 50 Gt. That is a small fraction (0.0002%) of the estimated 27 million Gt of ice making up the entire Antarctic ice sheet. That begs the question of whether we can actually measure that small of a difference in such a huge quantity to the uncertainties quoted.

Compare todays changes to those over the past 800 years.

http://www.the-cryos...-7-303-2013.pdf

billw55, on 2015-March-19, 06:40, said:

In the same way as one determines what is East or West at the equator - by using an arbitrary line. While the concept of East/West makes little sense at the pole itself, as soon as one steps away from it, as is the case when talking of the continent as a whole, East-West makes perfect sense. Of course you can call something anything you want too - the West Indies are east of the United States; in particular being mostly south-east of the Eastern United States, that are geographically heavily to the west of the planet (not to mention including West Virginia). As long as we all know what is being talked about it is all good. That is unfortunately a problem in climate science - quite often it has not at all been clear exactly what is being talked about giving plenty of leeway on both sides for claims to be made that, on closer inspection, turn out to be far less impressive than they might appear at first sound-bite.

Some recent examples:
"NASA study reveals new threat to rapidly melting East Antarctic glacier" (if we believe the posted GRACE data the "rapidly melting" seems an interesting choice of phrase.)
"There is no hiatus, 2014 was warm" (one year does not make a trend (and was also the solar maximum for what that is worth). There has been a period of minimal warming for whatever reason; it might now be ending (or not))
"The Australian Bureau of Meterology has corrupted the official temperature record so it more closely accords with the theory of anthropogenic global warming” (closer analysis shows homogenisation in this data is neutral with respect to AGW)
(almost) any post in this thread from AIU.

What I would like to see from the next generation of models is some increased effort to check sensitivities based on various inputs for parts of the system where we are unsure. Most of the models seem to have accepted the parameters calculated many years back with little further development as the data comes in. What if cloud feedback turns out to be slightly negative rather than positive? What if the solar cycle variations have a larger impact than previous thought during the assessment period? I might be wrong (I have not kept up to date on the literature) but the emphasis seems to be instead on improving the granularity of the models. I am not altogether convinced that that is the best approach.

The witch hunts also need to be addressed and stopped - on both sides! CA has long gone after Mann but the latest target has been Weaver with much written but little basis for the attacks shown. On the other side, Soon has been a recent target and again with little to no evidence of bias in the science itself. Indeed the CoI investigations seems to be politically motivated in general. Judge the science and point out where it falls down rather than trying to tear down the scientist!.

The whole thing makes for a bad atmosphere in which to do any serious science. Real science means investigating the data impassionately and writing up the results as they fall, not deciding the outcome in advance and then finding ways of making the data fit that summary. Sadly, only a very small number of climate scientists seem to grasp this notion and have managed to produce papers on both sides of the "consensus". It would be refreshing for Mann to produce a graph that showed a response without a hockey stick (by not using the controversial series) or for M&M to make an effort to point out mathemtaical discrepancies in skeptical papers. It would also please m greatly if AIU were able to post a balanced selection of reports and to avoid posting things are trivially wrong. Sadly I doubt any of these things will happen and the quality of actual science in the field will continue to be poor in what should be a physical science (high quality) subject.

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-20, 07:51, said:

I agree wholeheartedly. The entire issue of global warming/climate change/climate disruption has been politicized, such that any science which does not support a particular political view is immediately dismissed as junk or biased. Science needs to be performed from the data forward, with conclusions based thereon, not with the data being explained based on ones preconceived theories. Too many think their are two "sides" to this issue, and gravitate towards whichever fits their personal beliefs. In reality, both of these "sides" are in the minority, as the bulk of scientists fall in between, with a wide range of opinions and theories. Even the John Cook, et. al. paper, quantifying the consensus etc., determined that two-thirds of the papers examined did not either support or reject the anthropogenic climate change theory. The concept that everything is the result of global warming is just as absurd as claims that mankind has no effect on the environment. When a scientific theory or hypothesis has been shown to be wrong, or not entirely correct, the scientists proposing such should be the first to acknowledge such, not defending it tooth and nail, claiming harassment. This is how science used to work.

Daniel1960, on 2015-March-20, 08:30, said:

While I agree that this is the ideal, I strongly disagree that 'This is how science used to work'

Far from it: science, in the modern sense, is a recent development, and has been marred by a refusal to acknowledge error from its inception.

As one example, as recently as the early 20th century, 50 years after the publication on the Origin of Species, some of the world's leading and, then, famous paleontologists were ardent creationists and despised evolutionary theory.

Quantum mechanics was rejected by even Einstein, when he said that he refused to believe that God played dice with the universe. He even invented the Cosmological Constant in a conscious effort to avoid dealing with the then-known evidence. Ironically, while he later said that this invention was his biggest mistake, I gather that current thinking suggests that there might actually be something that serves that same function, albeit based on evidence and ideas alien to him.

Science is a human process, conducted by humans. Humans are not Vulcans. We are very largely irrational, and scientists are no less human than any other person. Some are more aware of their own weaknesses than are others, but cognitive dissonance is not unknown even to the most 'objective' of minds.

mikeh, on 2015-March-20, 12:56, said:

Yes, science has always had some element of subjectiveness. However, even Einstein acquiesced, when the evidence dictated such. New ideas have always required the burden of proof. Plate tectonics and bacteria-caused ulcers were ridiculed initially. Even so, when the evidence was overwhelming, colleagues did not refuse to accept it, but rather acknowledged the new theories.

This is a fascinating and long discussion of the conflict between the politics and the science of climate change during the early years of the Bush administration: https://youtu.be/a4YXEJ1gJVk

The interviewee, Rick Piltz, who founded Climate Science Watch, died on October 18, 2014.

Again guys humans have been changing the ecology for 50k years or more. This is called evolution. This is called nature.

Humans are an evasive species, we kill species, we change the ecology in drastic ways.


I thing posters either don't want to adapt or are afraid we may kill humans off...fair enough. In any case this is all an act of nature. I think at some point we don't agree with evolution.

In any case humans have drastically effected ecology that is being human.


I think we have an issue in accepting humans effect ecology in ways that may hurt species.

We may not like that "natural selection" favors genes over species.