ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Michael Hardner]

No - losing your reputation means nothing if you have buddies that will still hire you. Losing your credentials means nobody can legally hire you. There is a huge difference.

All of the investigations are under the control of institutions who want the issue to be swept under the carpet. I have no confidence that they will give the issues the airing they need.

Aside: I also think your claim that the 'process that has long served us well' is not supportable by facts. Can you provide any examples where peer review was used as the only means of verifying science before it was used in a way that affects the public? In all cases that I can think of the science has to go through the hands of engineers or medical regulatory bodies before it can be used outside of academia.

Examples where peer review was used as the only means of verifying science before it was used in a way that affects the public ? What ?

I don't know - physics ? Medicine ?

[Riverwind]

I don't know - physics ? Medicine ?

Where has 'peer reviewed' physics been used in the real world without first having engineers take the physics and verify it independently in a lab?

Where has 'peer reviewed' medicine been used in the real world without first having to go through a regulatory process with reporting/disclosure/verification standards that far exceed that of peer review?

'Peer review' is not a process that has proven itself in the past as a sound basis for policy making. It is simply a process used among academics and does not provide the disclosure, verification and validation that the public has come to expect from science used in engineering and medicine. For that reason you cannot argue that we should presume that the process is working as it is being sold to us by the alarmists because the process has never been used to justify such huge economic/social policy changes before.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Where has 'peer reviewed' physics been used in the real world without first having engineers take the physics and verify it independently in a lab?

You're asking me where in the world physics is used without engineers ? Honestly, I don't know. The military, perhaps.

Where has 'peer reviewed' medicine been used in the real world without first having to go through a regulatory process with reporting/disclosure/verification standards that far exceed that of peer review?

How about in the assessment of health risks, and in opinions that eventually find their way into the conversations between doctors and patients.

'Peer review' is not a process that has proven itself in the past as a sound basis for policy making. It is simply a process used among academics and does not provide the disclosure, verification and validation that the public has come to expect from science used in engineering and medicine. For that reason you cannot argue that we should presume that the process is working as it is being sold to us by the alarmists because the process has never been used to justify such huge economic/social policy changes before.

Maybe economics is a better example of a discipline that doesn't have immediate practical use, but is - like climatology - used for medium- and long-term forecasting.

Do we have an estimate of the size of these large policy changes ? As a percentage of GDP, I thought we had said 4% ? I'm not saying 4% is small, but I want to quantify 'large' at least for myself. If we use the term 'large' in discussion, some may think it means 60%.

[Riverwind]

RW, perhaps you can answer a question for me. Much is being made about the recent increase in sea ice surface area to be the result of "poor" or thin ice. This is given as an implication that the Arctic is still on the road to being rapidly ice-free.

After the big melt in 2007 they predicted a bigger melt in 2008 because most of the multiyear ice was gone. They were wrong. The multiyear ice increased in 2008. Here is an image that illustrates the increase in multiyear ice between 2008 and 2009.

What the news reports are alarmists are harping on is decrease 3+ year old ice, however, all of the 2 year ice will become 3+ year old ice if it survives next summer. IOW - the data confirms what you suspect - that a recovery after a major meltback takes time.

[Shady]

Normally I'd be hesitant in accepting your first linked Fox News reference...

Of course, why reference Fox News when you can reference groups that hide declines, use tricks, and fudge factors instead!

Greenland all together (typically, discussed in contextual relation to the Arctic):

Oh, Greenland's typically disucussed in relation to the Arctic? Sorry, I wasn't aware. But whatever you true believers need to do to make your argument stronger, by all means. Any idea whey GREENLAND, which got it's name because of it's green temperate climate, was green back in the day? Was it SUV's and coal burning plants used by the Vikings?

=> British Antarctic Survey - Lasers from space show thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets

=> Nature - Extensive dynamic thinning on the margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets

All you're doing is posting the same British corrupted "research" of the same ilk as the CRU and EAU. If they don't like the fact that the antarctic ice has been growing, don't blame the messenger, perhaps they need to talk directly to the glaciers, and tell them to behave!

Shady's claims... busted! Apparently, Shady's models and fudge factors were off - in spite of his puffed up display of confidence and bravado

Nope. My claims are sound. And the only models which include hiding, tricks and fudge factors are by your Messiah's of EAU. They only have themselves to blame for their ruined credibility.

However, I rarely see the dedication and loyalty from other true believers, as has been shown by you and your comrades in this forum. For that you should be commended.

[Riverwind]

How about in the assessment of health risks, and in opinions that eventually find their way into the conversations between doctors and patients.

Doctors who misrepresent the uncertainties can be sued if harm is cause. Climate scientists are completely unaccountable.

Maybe economics is a better example of a discipline that doesn't have immediate practical use, but is - like climatology - used for medium- and long-term forecasting.

I agree that economics is the most relevant comparison but with economics nobody uses peer reviewed studies as an unimpeachable justification for policies. People who disagree with free trade or the HST are not told they are 'anti-science' morons for questioning the consensus view. In fact, the consensus among economists is almost never brought up in debates over economy policy.

IOW, you don't seem to able to back up your assertion that peer review is a 'tried and true' process that can be relied on to set public policy. So the question is why should the general public accept peer review as the final word on what science is good enough to be used to set public policy?

Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Doctors who misrepresent the uncertainties can be sued if harm is cause. Climate scientists are completely unaccountable.

Lawsuits and threats of lawsuits are an inefficient way to keep things on the straight and narrow. Could tobacco companies have sued doctors for recommending against smoking when the first studies came out linking tobacco with cancer ?

It's illegal to litter, but what really keeps us from doing it is the dirty looks we'd get from other people.

I agree that economics is the most relevant comparison but with economics nobody uses peer reviewed studies as an unimpeachable justification for policies. People who disagree with free trade or the HST are not told they are 'anti-science' morons for questioning the consensus view. In fact, the consensus among economists is almost never brought up in debates over economy policy.

No, they're told they're "anti-economics" morons for questioning the consensus view.

When and how are economists used as a source ? I seem to remember them being in the forefront of the debate during the Fee Trade Agreement discussions of the 1980s.

IOW, you don't seem to able to back up your assertion that peer review is a 'tried and true' process that can be relied on to set public policy. So the question is why should the general public accept peer review as the final word on what science is good enough to be used to set public policy?

You've asked me to prove it for a narrow subset of science - applications of science that aren't monitored by professionals. The question was about peer review in general, which is used throughout science.

As to application of science to policy, there aren't very many examples of that being necessary anyway and we're still discussing my examples.

[Riverwind]

Lawsuits and threats of lawsuits are an inefficient way to keep things on the straight and narrow.

Agreed. But when the threat of lawsuits exists we can have greater confidence that things will be on the straight and narrow. What you seem to be missing is the need for accoutability. If people cannot be held accountable for their claims then we cannot have a lot confidence in their claims. You claim that a desire to protect ones reputation will keep scientists on the straight and narrow but I think that a desire to protect ones reputation can actually encourage as much dishonestly as it prevents.

When and how are economists used as a source ? I seem to remember them being in the forefront of the debate during the Fee Trade Agreement discussions of the 1980s.

And we had an election where the issues were debated and people we given a choice between voting for the party that agreed with the 'consensus' economics or one of the ones that did not. In the end the people made the decision based on the arguments presented by politicians. The decision was not foisted on them by a bunch of academics insisting that they knew what was best and that no one was allowed to question them.

You've asked me to prove it for a narrow subset of science - applications of science that aren't monitored by professionals. The question was about peer review in general, which is used throughout science.

A screwdriver is a very useful tool. But if you have to pound a nail into a wall it is next to useless. IOW, It does not make a difference if peer review is used to settle arguments between academics. What matters is whether it is an appropriate basis for major policy decisions. I say it is not. Major, potentially irreversible, policy decisions require a much higher standard of disclosure/validation/verification than is offered by peer review. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

And we had an election where the issues were debated and people we given a choice between voting for the party that agreed with the 'consensus' economics or one of the ones that did not. In the end the people made the decision based on the arguments presented by politicians. The decision was not foisted on them by a bunch of academics insisting that they knew what was best and that no one was allowed to question them.

The "no one is allowed to question them" accusation is wrong and we've discussed that on here already plenty.

As to whether an election could/would/should be held on the matter of a major policy change on AGW, I say why not.

A screwdriver is a very useful tool. But if you have to pound a nail into a wall it is next to useless. IOW, It does not make a difference if peer review is used to settle arguments between academics. What matters is whether it is an appropriate basis for major policy decisions. I say it is not. Major, potentially irreversible, policy decisions require a much higher standard of disclosure/validation/verification than is offered by peer review.

I have already suggested some modifications that could be made to the scientific process to accommodate public input where it's needed. If scientific process, though, needs some fine tuning - the political process needs a complete and utter overhaul. The noise we're seeing now is a result of those two systems clashing with each other.

With the political process, there is absolutely nothing that prevents pundits from exaggerating or outright lying, and nothing to hold them to their statements. They can and do inflame people with the worst types of paranoia. This is more than fudging numbers, or moving from real data to proxy data, it's outright deception.

Don't you think something needs to be done about that too ?

[Shady]

Don't you just love irony!

Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight.

Mother nature sure has a glorious sense of humour!

[waldo]

Don't you just love irony!

Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight.

Mother nature sure has a glorious sense of humour!

of course - Shady wouldn't know the difference between weather... and climate

[Shady]

of course - Shady wouldn't know the difference between weather... and climate

Yes of course I do. And speaking of Denmark's climate...

"Denmark has a maritime climate and milder winters than its Scandinavian neighbors. It hasn’t had a white Christmas for 14 years, under the DMI’s definition, and only had seven last century."

Global warming for the win!

LOL!

[waldo]

Of course, why reference Fox News when you can reference groups that hide declines, use tricks, and fudge factors instead!

All you're doing is posting the same British corrupted "research" of the same ilk as the CRU and EAU. If they don't like the fact that the antarctic ice has been growing, don't blame the messenger, perhaps they need to talk directly to the glaciers, and tell them to behave!

poor Shady... I said ordinarily I'd have difficulty stomaching your Fox News link; however... when it essentially redirects to the Australian publication... and the Australian publication touts the upcoming British Antarctic Survey paper as presumed confirmation... well, I'll certainly pump up the volume over the fact that British Antarctic Survey clearly doesn't support the Australian, doesn't support Fox News and doesn't support your claim. Shady... ain't it a beeatch when your own presumed support links blow up in your face? Really, Shady... now that your link support vanished you want to claim that support you wanted to hang your hat on is now corrupt... because... they're British! Poor Shady.

I see you didn't have anything to say about the Star link... the Barber study... apparently, you'd like to just ignore that - or do you also want to claim that's corrupt... because... he's Canadian! Poor Shady.

Oh, Greenland's typically disucussed in relation to the Arctic? Sorry, I wasn't aware. But whatever you true believers need to do to make your argument stronger, by all means. Any idea whey GREENLAND, which got it's name because of it's green temperate climate, was green back in the day? Was it SUV's and coal burning plants used by the Vikings?

Don't worry Shady... as Greenland holds the second largest ice sheet in the world, second only to Antarctica... it's understandable you'd want to ignore it's deterioration, even though, if your plan succeeds, it's been studied to suggest the mass of it's land will actually end up under water. So, your apparent acceptance of that deterioration and everything it means for rising sea levels, methane release and forced feedback on temperature via CO2, is predicated on the fact it's name speaks to a former period when it's absolute most southerly point was able to sustain the Norsemen for a brief period in time... much as occurred when North America was called "Vineland" because the Norsemen were able to grow grapes in the most northerly locations until global cooling raised it's hand. So... Shady wants to wait on global cooling... poor Shady.

Nope. My claims are sound.

However, I rarely see the dedication and loyalty from other true believers, as has been shown by you and your comrades in this forum. For that you should be commended.

Sure Shady... if you call sound having your own references blow up on you... if you call sound ignoring the actual evidence of Arctic ice melting... if you call sound completely ignoring Greenland in your astute assessment, while ignoring the actual evidence of Greenlands ice sheet melting... if you call sound ignoring the actual evidence of Antarctic ice sheet melting. Certainly, Shady... if you do all that, your claims are quite sound, indeed! Poor Shady.

Comrades? Poor Shady.

[waldo]

After the big melt in 2007 they predicted a bigger melt in 2008 because most of the multiyear ice was gone. They were wrong. The multiyear ice increased in 2008. Here is an image that illustrates the increase in multiyear ice between 2008 and 2009.

What the news reports are alarmists are harping on is decrease 3+ year old ice, however, all of the 2 year ice will become 3+ year old ice if it survives next summer. IOW - the data confirms what you suspect - that a recovery after a major meltback takes time.

no... that is incorrect... multi-year ice most certainly did not increase in 2008.

Arctic Report Card: Update for 2009 - Sea Ice Cover - Sea ice age and thickness

The age of the ice is another key descriptor of the state of the sea ice cover, since older ice tends to be thicker and more resilient than younger ice. A simple two-stage approach classifies sea ice into first year and multiyear ice. First-year is ice that has not yet survived a summer melt season, while multi-year ice has survived at least one summer and can be several years old. Satellite derived maps of ice age for March of 2007, 2008, and 2009 are presented in Figure S3.

In the past decade, the extent of multiyear sea ice rapidly reduced at a rate of 1.5 x 10E+6 km2 per decade, triple the reduction rate during the three previous decades (1970-2000). Springtime multiyear ice extent was the lowest in 2008 in the QuikSCAT data record since 2000. QuikSCAT results in March 2009 showed a multiyear ice extent of 3.0 ± 0.2 million km2. This was 0.3 million km2 larger than the multiyear ice extent on the same date in 2008, even though the total sea ice extent was similar in the spring of 2008 and 2009. While the multiyear ice extent was similar in March 2008 and 2009, its distribution was quite different. More specifically, in 2008 there was a significant amount of multiyear ice the Beaufort Sea and in 2009 there was a large amount of multiyear ice the central Arctic Ocean.

Recent estimates of Arctic Ocean sea ice thickness from satellite altimetry show a remarkable overall thinning of ~0.6 m in ice thickness between 2004 and 2008 (Figure. S4a). In contrast, the average thickness of the thinner first-year ice in mid-winter (~2 m), did not exhibit a downward trend. Seasonal ice is an important component covered more than two-thirds of the Arctic Ocean in 2008. The total multiyear ice volume in the winter experienced a net loss of more than 40% in the four years since 2005 while the first year ice cover gained volume due to increased overall coverage of the Arctic Ocean. The declines in total volume and average thickness (black line in Figure S4a) are explained almost entirely by thinning and loss of multiyear sea ice due to melting and ice export. These changes have resulted in seasonal ice becoming the dominant Arctic sea ice type, both in terms of area coverage and of volume.

The recent satellite estimates were compared with the longer historical record of declassified sonar measurements from US Navy submarines (Figure S4b). Within the submarine data release area (covering ~38% of the Arctic Ocean), the overall mean winter thickness of 3.6 m in 1980 can be compared to a 1.9 m mean during the last winter of the ICESat record—a decrease of 1.7 m in thickness. This combined submarine and satellite record shows a long-term trend of sea ice thinning over submarine and ICESat records that span three decades. The contribution of the increasing fraction of first year ice to the long term thickness trend remains to be determined.

perhaps you would just as easily dismiss David Barber... and his most impressive body of work (over 100 published papers)... and his most recent study/revelations that "'Permanent' Arctic ice is vanishing"... that the state of remaining multi-year ice is "rotten". Would you consider Barber one your described alarmists? But then you'd have to discount your own previous link from the NSIDC given their comments in regards Barber's study:

Dave Barber’s observations give the sort of on-the-ground confirmation of the situation that lends confidence to predictions that we’re headed towards a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean. Dave’s been up there looking at sea ice conditions for many years. He knows what he’s talking about.

The most interesting thing in the article is that the old multiyear ice is so broken up now. Even if there is a considerable amount, it is all in broken (or even rotten) floes of ice and not a largely consolidated pack like it used to be. That is a significant change in the character of the ice cover beyond the basic changes in extent and age distribution.

[Riverwind]

no... that is incorrect... multi-year ice most certainly did not increase in 2008.

The image I linked to from the NISDC proves you wrong. In any case, after 2007 they said that the 2008 melt would be bigger because of all the first year ice. They were wrong. The first year ice survived and become multiyear ice. They are trying the same tactic this year. We will have to wait and see what happens next year. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

The image I linked to from the NISDC proves you wrong. In any case, after 2007 they said that the 2008 melt would be bigger because of all the first year ice. They were wrong. The first year ice survived and become multiyear ice. We will have to wait and see what happens next year.

perhaps you should take another look at your own linked graphic... look at the color index associations... and explain, when comparing 2007 to 2008, where you see the increase of 2008 multi-year ice (as was your claim)... wrt the teal (2nd year ice, 1-2 years old) & green (older ice, >2 years old).

so, it appears you would favour ignoring the linked report I put up from NOAA (did you happen to note, the NISDC rep who co-authored the 'report' NOAA presents?)... you'd like to ignore the NOAA report that offers referenced citations and draws support from multiple satellites, declassified sonar measurements from US Navy submarines, drifting ice buoys and NISDC references. It also appears you'd like to completely... absolutely... discount anything from David Barber - you won't touch it. Is that the "open mindedness" you so champion in your daily crusade?

you just want to ignore it all. You'd like to completely ignore/discount the past decades rapid loss in multi-year ice extent... unprecedented. You'd like to completely ignore/discount the declines in total volume and average thickness of multiyear ice... the thinning and loss due to melting and ice export. You'd like to completely ignore/discount that multi-year ice is no longer the dominant ice type in terms of both area coverage and volume. And, of course, you'd like to completely ignore/discount the described 'rotten' state of remaining multi-year ice. You'd like to completely ignore/discount it all... while not offering any explanation for what's causing it. How convenient.

[Riverwind]

perhaps you should take another look at your own linked graphicwhen comparing 2007 to 2008, where you see the increase of 2008 multi-year ice (as was your claim)... wrt the teal (2nd year ice, 1-2 years old) & green (older ice, >2 years old).

The ice survived in 2008. It became multiyear ice in 2009. You can see the increase in multi-year iced by comparing the 2008-2009 graphics.

you just want to ignore it all. You'd like to completely ignore/discount the past decades rapid loss in multi-year ice extent... unprecedented.

Unprecedented in 30 years is not very interesting. Get back to me when you have some evidence that it is unprecedented on a climatologically interesting timescale.

Here is a good illustration from the ice core data that puts the current arctic warming in its proper context.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[Shady]

Unprecedented in 30 years is not very interesting. Get back to me when you have some evidence that it is unprecedented on a climatologically interesting timescale.

Here is a good illustration from the ice core data that puts the current arctic warming in its proper context.

Great post! To Waldo and the other true believers, the earth began just over 100 years ago. Information preceeding 1900 is irrelevant to them.

[eyeball]

No, they're told they're "anti-economics" morons for questioning the consensus view.

They're called communists, for the same reason people who back the consensus view an AGW are called communists. If the word communist was around 2000 years ago they would have called Jesus one too.

When and how are economists used as a source ? I seem to remember them being in the forefront of the debate during the Fee Trade Agreement discussions of the 1980s.

These sorts of economists are treated like gods whereas their sceptics are deemed heretics. The difference between a climatologist and and economist is vast given their respective scepticism/policy ratios, but I guess only a heretic communist would see it.

[Halfempty]

Hmm, this is the kind of corruption that one would expect from politicians and businessmen, but I guess even scientists have their own hidden agendas.

Troubling news anyways. Ideally scientists and the research they do are supposed to help us advance as a species, but when greed comes into the picture it has the opposite effect. If we only have one sided, bias research it's impossible to find the real truth to anything.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Troubling news anyways. Ideally scientists and the research they do are supposed to help us advance as a species, but when greed comes into the picture it has the opposite effect. If we only have one sided, bias research it's impossible to find the real truth to anything.

Not really surprising....."scientists" are not any different than people in any other discipline, and in many respects, because of fierce competition for research grants, may even be a great bit worse.

[Michael Hardner]

These sorts of economists are treated like gods whereas their sceptics are deemed heretics. The difference between a climatologist and and economist is vast given their respective scepticism/policy ratios, but I guess only a heretic communist would see it.

You seem to think they should be treated the same way. If so, how should they be treated ? How about as respected experts who know more than us, and are right more often than they are wrong.

[GostHacked]

Although I do believe these leaked emails do tell us that the data has been manipulated. I am quite sure that no one would be stupid enough to put 'FUDGE FACTOR' in the code of the program. They would have named it something else that would not give it away.

[GostHacked]

Hmm, this is the kind of corruption that one would expect from politicians and businessmen, but I guess even scientists have their own hidden agendas.

I guess you can say, everyone has their price.

[eyeball]

You seem to think they should be treated the same way. If so, how should they be treated ? How about as respected experts who know more than us, and are right more often than they are wrong.

Not really, its the treatment of scepticism that seems out of whack.

Consider the respected experts who insist cutting the GST was a dumb idea and likewise to arguments against harmonizing the GST/HST. Depending on their own assessment of short-term political gain or risk, political parties of all stripes are both following and ignoring expert economic advice in a seemingly scatter-shot way.

Is it inappropriate to expect policy makers use some sort of standard for measuring or weighing not just the quality but also the quantity of expert scepticism when formulating public policies?