[Vision2020] National Snow Ice Data Center: Arctic Sea Ice Decline During June Continues Below Record 2007 Low Extent

[Ted Moffett]

Errors are corrected and a few responses included below with asterisks to
highlight what are my new comments:

On 7/4/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Just to make sure I haven't skipped anything important, I'm going to
> comment on every last fucking thing in your post...
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
> If you don't have the time or are under duress, don't feel any obligation
> respond to this post.  It's only Vision2020, after all...
>
>
> I happen, gods willing, to have some free time this afternoon.
>
>
> I have read your skeptical arguments regarding climate science over and
> over and there was nothing fundamentally new in your last response.  But
> maybe someone else reading your skeptical arguments will find your comments
> useful.
>
>
>
> But there was something new.  I'll get to that shortly.
>

**** I was referring only to your previous post regarding "nothing
fundamentally new" being presented, and this point still stands.  Something
"fundamentally new" regarding the science on anthropogenic climate warming
would be new theories or facts to support your skepticism of the overall
science involved.  Your discussion of Arctic sea ice data contains nothing
"fundamentally new" to refute the consensus science presented from these
credible sources from 2009-10 (
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-May/070133.html
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-May/070247.html
http://magazine.amstat.org/blog/2010/03/01/climatemar10/ )
indicating anthropogenic climate warming is a serious problem that requires
action.
*********************


>
> Given the polarized politicized emotional nature of many discussions on
> anthropogenic climate warming, it is necessary to repeat the peer reviewed
> scientific consensus on this issue over and over, especially as new peer
> reviewed scientific publications and evidence becomes available (such as the
> 2009 MIT Integrated Global System Model:
> http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/no-policy.html
> http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1 ),
> because of the powerful interests working to discredit this science.
> Therefore I repeat basic points regarding climate science over and over.
>
>
> I'm not sure that constant repetition is the best way to go about getting
> your points across, but that's up to you.  Also, as an aside, global climate
> models are not "evidence" of anything.  They can be useful in telling you
> where to look or how best to flesh out a hypothesis and they can be used to
> make predictions, but "evidence" involves real measurements of real things.
>
>

****I doubt you have read the MIT peer reviewed paper I referenced:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1

Journal of Climate
October 2009, Vol. 22, No. 19 : pp. 5175-5204



Probabilistic Forecast for Twenty-First-Century Climate Based on
Uncertainties in Emissions (Without Policy) and Climate Parameters
-------
The source above requires a log-in, but I found what *appears to be* at
least an early version of this scientific work, on the MIT website, that is
offered to the public gratis (this pdf document is 50 pages long).  Their
work of course includes data, but I have not studied this presentation in
detail yet, so I cannot now comment with much in depth authority on this
work.  Perhaps you can refute this work with a peer reviewed published
response.  I would be happy to discover this MIT study to be fundamentally
flawed:

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44627/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf?sequence=1

*******************************

>
> But considering your admonition regarding "hesitating before describing
> some climate change skeptics as
> having confirmation bias filters" I wonder why you again do not address the
> "confirmation bias filtered website" that I referenced regarding the 2010
> Arctic sea ice extent trends.  This is after I requested you address the
> specifics in my post, and the first "specific" I mentioned that you were not
> addressing was this "climate change skeptics confirmation bias filtered
> website"
>
>
> Yes, I saw that you referenced it.
>
>
> If you are going to offer condescending advice, you might defend this
> advice or withdraw it, when evidence indicates the advice was ill conceived.
>
>
> Take this as a "defense" of that advice.
>
>
> Here is my first comment on this website in the thread on "National Snow
> Ice Data Center: Arctic Sea Ice Decline During June Continues Below Record
> 2007 Low Extent":
>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-June/070679.html
>
> "So much for the Arctic sea ice extent "recovery" promoted by some climate
> change skeptics confirmation bias
> filtered websites (
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/29/another-arctic-sea-ice-milestone/ )
> as evidence to question the seriousness of anthropogenic climate warming."
>
>
> Yes, I did read that.  Yes, he was perhaps jumping the gun a bit.  As it
> turned out, sea ice extent dropped below the 2007 levels and has remained
> there for the last few weeks.  However, here is the point of my response:
>
> You may be doing the same fucking thing.
>


****False.  I made no predictions regarding the final low September 2010
Arctic sea ice extent based on ice conditions in April 2010, as was made on
this website in April:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/29/another-arctic-sea-ice-milestone/

"...the indications are that we’ll have another summer extent that is higher
than the previous year, for the third year in a row."

*******************************

 Here is the current IARC-JAXA sea ice extent daily graph for July 3rd (I'm
> attaching the image to this email because if you go to the link tomorrow it
> will show tomorrows graph):
>
> http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
>
> Take a look at the graph.  When Anthony Watts made his blog post, the red
> line (2010) was way above the dark green line (2007).  See how the red line
> dropped below the dark green line around the beginning of June?  That's the
> point at which it started to look like Anthony Watt's blog posting was
> premature.  When you posted to V2020, the red line was below the dark green
> line and was running mostly parallel to both the dark green line (2007) and
> the light green line (2006), but looked like they might have been starting
> to converge.  That was when I posted that new bit of information you missed:
> that it's possible that those lines might converge at a later date, causing
> the 2010 data not to end up lower than the 2007 data for summer sea ice
> extent numbers.  Today, the lines are nearly crossing.  We'll have to watch
> over the next few days and see if they do actually cross.  If they do, then
> there is a pretty good chance that 2010 will stay above 2007 as the annual
> time for minimal sea ice extent approaches, which is in the September time
> frame.
>
> So, basically, our argument went something like this:
>
> Anthony Watts (paraphrased):  Ha!  2010 sea ice extent is going to be
> higher than 2007!  Naner-naner-naner!
>

****False.  The prediction I referenced from this website was that the final
low Arctic sea ice extent for 2010 would be higher than the previous year
(2009).  This of course would mean that it would be higher than the record
low extent of 2007, but the prediction was more exact than just stating
that.  It would be possible for the final low Arctic sea ice extent in 2010
to be lower than the 2009 low, and still be higher than the record low in
2007.  But the prediction is specific that the final low in 2010 would be
higher than 2009.  Here is the prediction again, for clarity:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/29/another-arctic-sea-ice-milestone/

"...the indications are that we’ll have another summer extent that is higher
than the previous year, for the third year in a row."
***************************

 You (paraphrased): Confirmation bias!
> Me (paraphrased): Well, actually... he might be right.  Take care when thou
> useth the "confirmation bias" phrase, lest it rebound back upon thee!
>


**** I agree.  He might be right.  Accidentally.  Even a stopped clock reads
the correct time twice a day.  This does not change the fact that the April
2010 Arctic sea ice conditions are too early in the season to make a
specific prediction that the final low September Arctic ice extent for 2010
will be either higher or lower than the previous year.

My point stands that this prediction is evidence of a confirmation bias
filter, from a website well known for having a slant to undermine the
scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate warming.
******************************

 We'll have to wait and see if he ends up being right.  Personally, I think
> that both you and Anthony Watts (who I have never met or corresponded with)
> should tone down your rhetoric.
>

****My analysis of climate science predominantly focuses on referencing peer
reviewed science.  I make a point of studying the skeptical of anthropogenic
climate warming peer reviewed science also, to discover what the peer review
responses indicate regarding the reliability of the skeptical science.  This
approach is rational, objective, and aimed at discovering the truth.
*****************************

>  --------------
> Here is your response, a response that makes no mention of the specific
> website content I specifically referred to above:
>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-June/070688.html
>
> "I'd suggest hesitating before describing some climate change skeptics as
> having confirmation bias filters."
> --------------
> I responded to explain why I described this website as having a
> "confirmation bias filter," and stated flatly that *I will not hesitate to
> point out such a bias when it is clear it is present, in the following
> response:*
>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-June/070695.html
>
> "Please address the specifics of my post.  I have no clue why you ignore my
> specific comment on the "climate change skeptics confirmation bias filtered
> website" I referenced.  I implied that the following website was describing
> the "recovery" in Arctic sea ice through a bias confirmation filter.  This
> statement from this website is an expression of what I meant:
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/29/another-arctic-sea-ice-milestone/
>
> "...the indications are that we’ll have another summer extent that is
> higher
> than the previous year, for the third year in a row."
>
>
>
> You had confused me here, since I thought that I *had* responded to both
> your post and his blog posting.
>
>
> Note that this statement was posted on April 29, 2010.  I doubt that any
> competent climate scientist would issue such a statement at that time of the
> year, knowing full well that many different variables between April 29 and
> the final September maximum low Arctic sea ice extent, could alter the
> outcome, so that the 2010 maximum low Arctic sea ice extent might be either
> higher or lower than the previous year.  The statement under discussion from
> this anthropogenic climate warming skeptic web site amounts to nothing more
> than wishful thinking, inspired by the well known bias of this website.
>
> I will not hesitate to point out a confirmation bias filter when it is
> clear someone is apparently under the spell of one."
> ----------------
> In your last response below in this thread (National Snow Ice Data Center:
> Arctic Sea Ice Decline During June Continues Below Record 2007 Low Extent),
> as I stated, you do not address what was the first point I emphasized in the
> post you were answering, regarding the website under discussion as having a
> "confirmation bias filter."  You obviously found my statement regarding
> "confirmation bias filters" on climate science previously of interest, given
> your advice to hesitate regarding this description.  Therefore it is
> puzzling why you write below that you did not respond to "everything in your
> post" but to "a portion of it that interested me," then do not respond to
> what did interest you, my description of a website as having a "confirmation
> bias filter."
>
>
> What interested me was not Anthony Watt's blog posting itself, it was the
> fact that you jumped in there with both feet exhibiting what I saw to be the
> same behavior you were condemning.
>

****  I was not exhibiting the same behavior regarding predictions of final
low 2010 Arctic sea ice extent, as I have indicated.
*******************************
Perhaps it would be better if we didn't treat every single post as if it
were  a debating class.  Try dropping the agenda and laying down the mantle
of saving the world for a few minutes and just converse as if we were two
buddies sipping beer with  access to the salient facts at our disposal.  If
I end up being wrong, it won't invalidate everything a skeptic has ever
said.  Likewise, if you end up being wrong about something, it won't
invalidate the whole of the AGW theory.

Paul

**** I have no agenda but to the pursue the most probably scientific truth
regarding anthropogenic climate warming.  If I thought the evidence
indicates the science to be highly indeterminate or even false, I would
state so.  As far as "a mantle of saving the world," forget about it.  As I
have stated repeatedly, I don't think humanity will address anthropogenic
climate warming to any large extent in coming decades; and I have no
illusion that any action I take will make any difference.  Nonetheless, I'll
continue to express what the evidence indicates is the probable truth on
this issue.
********************************

> (I've deleted the earlier emails in order to save some space.)
>
>
>
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100708/2219010e/attachment-0001.html