[Vision2020] NSIDC: 2010 Arctic Sea Ice Decline Highest for Month of May During Satellite Record.

[Paul Rumelhart]

I was attempting to show you that there are reasons for skepticism that 
are based on good sound science.  You seem to think that the only way 
you can be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming is if you either 
"construct confirmation bias filters" or "dismiss the overwhelming 
evidence".  There is a lot of room for error in this theory.  The link 
you posted on climate sensitivity shows values that are all over the 
board, from 0.26 to 5.5 Kelvins.  There doesn't seem to be a trend that 
shows them converging on a final number, either.  Since 2000, the range 
is 0.75 to 4.5 Kelvin.  Anything under about 1.2 is probably not a 
problem, since it implies strong negative feedback.  Anything over about 
2 could be a definite problem, depending upon the exact feedbacks 
involved.  It doesn't appear to me that climate scientists are on top of 
the feedback problem, either.  I'm not even confident that they have 
identified them all, let alone figured out exactly how they affect each 
other.

I was speaking directly to the part of your post that said "and Arctic 
sea ice also is on track to tie or exceed the previous record low of 
2007" when I posted what I did.  That was to show that the trends, which 
are highly tied to the satellite record, could be wrong even if they 
continue as they have since it's more than possible that they have 
mistaken sea ice buildup with a corresponding drop in snow cover as a 
decline in overall ice thickness.

One major point I've been trying to make through all of this is that the 
climate is a complicated system and that I expect that climate 
scientists will continue to be surprised by it in the years to come.  
That doesn't mean that the catastrophic scenarios described elsewhere 
won't happen, just that I don't put too much faith in them based on the 
complexities involved and because of the amount of politics that seem to 
be driving the science.

Paul

Ted Moffett wrote:
> */Please refrain from distorting my carefully worded statements.  You 
> are misrepresenting what I wrote./*  
>  
> I will quote from my first post on the record Arctic sea ice 
> decline for the month of May, in 2010:
>  
> "...*/they may need/* to construct more powerful confirmation bias
> filters,*/ if 2010 trends continue as they have./*  We are on course 
> in 2010 to
> set a new warmest annual average global temperature year, and Arctic 
> sea ice
> also is on track to tie or exceed the previous record low of 2007.
>
> Of course, these trends */could change substantially."/*
> ------------
> This quote does not indicate that I think the trend for the 2010 
> Arctic sea ice to be the lowest surface area coverage on record, to be 
> "set in stone," as you wrote (I state that the trends "could change 
> substantially").
>  
> I was only pointing out that if the 2010 trends so far, both for 
> average global temperature, and Arctic sea ice area decline, 
> */continue,/* it will be evidence against the claims of some 
> anthropogenic climate change skeptics, who have insisted global 
> warming is not progressing in the global temperature record since the 
> record high years 1998 and/or 2005, and that the Arctic ice has 
> "recovered" from the 2007 record low.
>  
> But one way or the other, the confirmation bias prevalent among many 
> of the anthropogenic climate change skeptics will result in them 
> dismissing a record warm average global temperature for 2010, or 
> record low Arctic sea ice extent 2010, as not very important.  
> Greenland could slip into the ocean, and Manhattan rendered a loss due 
> to flooding, and many of the anthropogenic climate change skeptics 
> would insist these were natural climate change events.
>  
> They employ their confirmation bias to dismiss the overwhelming 
> evidence from the numerous studies of climate sensitivity (increase in 
> global average temperature from a doubling of atmospheric CO2), one of 
> the most important questions in climate science, that have been 
> conducted since Arrhenius in 1896, that demonstrate climate 
> sensitivity to be significant; and that the radiative 
> physics/mathematics regarding CO2's operation in the Earth's 
> atmosphere is well established science, demonstrating that human 
> sourced CO2 emissions are significantly warming the Earth's climate:
>  
> http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html
>  
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm
>  
> -------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>  
>  
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>       My main reason for responding to Ted was based on his comment
>     that skeptics will have to beef up their confirmation bias filters
>     to not believe that sea ice will fall below 2007 levels.  I wanted
>     to point out that those kinds of conclusions are not as set in
>     stone as he thinks.  
>
>