Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Russian scientist predicts global cooling

Ha ha ha

Let me try.

Ah DA Morgan ... 306 characters, 54 words, 1 page in OpenOffice Writer ... and not a single link to a single study supporting the actual science.

Perhaps RicS is, like me, deluded into thinking that in a science forum ... one should make arguments based on serious science ... not who can write fewest number of lines.

quality <> quantity

About your link:

- The Arctic is a single region. It does not indicate a worldly trend.
- The study was about change over a single year
- It makes no mention of global warming
- It has an If statement that is guessing what the future will hold
- It mentions "another record low" without stating when it last occured or when records started to be kept

Did I miss anything?

G'day John,

You missed a couple (although you got what I would consider were the main points).

If I may:

"While the total area of all the Arctic sea ice was stable in winter, ... "

Ah, so in total the Artic sea ice sheet hasn't changed. Hmm. So they are being picky. Bit like Antarctica then when they focus on a small part of the ice sheet that really is shrinking and neglect to mention just how small in percentage terms this area is.

Failed to mention that they are talking about a particularly warm year and that 2006 trended back towards the "norm" for the short period that the satellite derived data has been available. How come 2006 was not mentioned?

The whole article could be considered a plea for funding, hence the: "Nghiem cautioned the recent Arctic changes are not well understood and many questions remain. "It's vital that we continue to closely monitor this region, using both satellite and surface-based data," he said."

Dr Hansen of the Goddard Institute thinks NASA is being short changed in funding to such a large extent that he has written a "private" view of this travesty, which has either just been published or shortly will be published.

And, I've written this because we are actually discussing the science of climate change, for a change. It might be a news article but it at least meant that real issues could be addressed.


Regards


Richard

That would be really amusing John/Ric if it wasn't for the fact that I have posted this link:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06315_sea_ice.html

At least 5 times in the last two weeks.

Refute it or demonstrate the professional integrity to acknowledge that you can't.

to quote your link

that satilite was launched in late 1999, which means that it has been in orbit less than 6 years.

It is common knowledge that 2005 was a record hot year, with many explinations of why. over a hundred years there are likely to be many record hot years. Since the record keeping of the poles has been less than a hundred years, of course were going to be seeing one that is the record. so the perennial sea ice melted more during that one year than normal. can you tell me that that is surprising. During the next record cold year, it will likely grow. will you be back here using that as evidence of a global freezing?

why not come up with some real data instead of telling us your tired of giveing us all the new stories. we never wanted the news stories in the first place. We wanted the hard science.

ok, we acknowedge that this is a politically written news story. does that help you. the sparce data that it gives is so useless that it does not really say anything scientifically.

If the "natually occuring event" of gw is actually a cycyle, which all the evidence suggest, then

1) there IS nothing we can really do about it.

2) there is nothing that needs to be done about it because it will cycle back later, more than likely. its been doing so for thousands of years, why would now be any difference.

on the other hand, if its a cycle and man gets into his head that we have to cool things down, and we succeed just before the cycles turnes, then its going to get extreamly cold very quickly.

show us the actual science and will refute it. until you have actual science its, hard to refute the science that is not there.

DA, I did refute it. Check my http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/1104/7.html#000102 post.

dehammer wrote:
"to quote your link ... quote:Nghiem cautioned "

That's right. I don't just post things after filtering them. I post them because they are science.

But do note that he issue wasn't whether it is melting but rather how much is human causation. Something you and I have already agreed is not the subject of the debate. That is not something that John/Ric has yet to acknowledge.

And no it does not help as the research reported is not political.

JR wrote:
"DA, I did refute it. Check my http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/1104/7.html#000102 post."

Your personal opinion as a member of the lay public is worth as much as mine. One does not refute NASA research with personal opinion unless one is preaching to their Sunday school class. You did not post anything from any study refuting the original work and conclusions. So no you did no such thing.

Please Note: This IS a science forum.

actually, it was how much was a regular melting and if it was going to be continued. also they need to know if the ice is just moving around or disappearing. Its disappearing in one area, but does that mean its disappearing altogether or just moving from side to side. that is what they need to determine.

Okay, I've finally made it through the 7+ pages and I'd like to comment about the last few posts (and their reference to previous posts) only. Regarding these comments below, I just don't see that the NASA article is refuted. These are all good points to talk about, but I don't think any of them rise to the level of refuting the article.
I'd like to talk about Richard's point that the total sea ice hasn't changed. I thought the article was pointing out that the quality of the ice was changing from perennial to annual, so overall mass of ice was decreasing.
Or Richard's point about the 2006 data. It takes time to generate studies like this. The news article refers to 3 studies published in a recent Geophysical Research Letters. They had to finish their study and submit it and get it accepted (peer review?); and that's gotta take months at least, so I'd think the 2006 data probably weren't available when they finished their study.
John's 'single year" comment certainly means that nothing definitive can be said about this study regarding GW or CC, but that doesn't mean the study is refuted. At worst, I think you could say it was flawed; needing more research (which I think was also pointed out in the article -to Richards chagrin -sounds like he's had some experiences in this area).

I don't see anything wrong with the researchers assessment that IF the ice melted, the ocean would warm more. (John, is that the 'if' statement you were referring to?) This seems like a neat topic to talk about though; I mean why do we assume that the ocean would warm? Should I already know? Is it common knowledge backed by many studies? Might be interesting to speculate about. Maybe the Arctic is different from the Antarctic with respect to ice cover insulation/salinity exchange --sheesh, I'm just making stuff up here.
John, I did think those were very good points about the 'record low' and when records were kept, but I still don't see that as refuting the article.
So, overall I'm not trying to come down on one side or the other; I'm just looking at this as a neat place to critique an article and maybe stimulate some new thoughts (purely selfish).
Here's the "below" excerpts:
and John, is this what you are saying refutes the NASA article?
"The study was about change over a single year - It makes no mention of global warming - It has an If statement that is guessing what the future will hold - It mentions "another record low" without stating when it last occurred or when records started to be kept Did I miss anything?" --John
And Richards also added more points: "Ah, so in total the Artic sea ice sheet hasn't changed. Hmm." & "Failed to mention that they are talking about a particularly warm year and that 2006 trended back towards the "norm" for the short period that the satellite derived data has been available. How come 2006 was not mentioned?"
----
and I see now that a few more posts have come up pretty much making the same point I'm making here, so for what it's worth....
& Please nobody take offence, I think you all have had good points about what is science, and what are we debating exactly, and how it should be debated, etc.
& Re: last post -dehammer. Are you saying that he, Nghiem, is saying it's human caused melting. I didn't see that. Nghiem specifically says "recent Arctic changes are not well understood and many questions remain." Did I misunderstand what your post says, or get the attribution mixed up? ~Sam

G'day dehammer,

Quick comments. And to Dan (Mr Morgan), I'm going to reply against my own better judgement. What was the posts about arctic ice that both John and I posted if they did not directly speak to your NEWS article that you have repeatedly posted?

2005 was a hot year but not a record. That was 1998. 2005 was a peak year but no where near as hot as 1998 (a major El Nino affected year) according to the satellite data. It seems that everyone likes to say that 2005 was a record year. Yeah, it has some record COLD temperatures broken and was a pretty hot year in relation to the records from 1979 but why call it a record hot year when it wasn't (no offence to you dehammer by the way - this detail is not easy to find).


Regards


Richard

G'day Samwik,

I liked your post. You looked at the science of the discussion and focused on that. It means that it is easy to discuss.

Firstly, we are all referring to a news article, not research. I've read many research papers and then news articles allegedly referring to those papers and have wondered if we were on the same planet. But for the moment we'll assume that NASA's news article is a reasonable, if very brief summary of the research.

Firstly to the speculation. The "if" part if you will. Speculation is fine if not used to support some larger theory. I have no problem with they need more research. But this area is being studied by a number of scientific groups and I wonder whether NASA also needs to do it. That was the purpose of my little comment.

Mr Morgan actually provided us with a link to another site that uses the same satellite data to monitor Arctic sheet ice and they keep their data very close to up to date. If you are going to us an "if" in an article and there is more up to date data, then I would suggest it should be at least referred to. If the article is simply a summary of research that is going through the process to publication, then there would be no need at all. Such things have a lag of up to two years.

I do not believe that anyone is trying to refute the NASA article at all aside from the "if" part. Once you leave research and enter the speculative field then anyone can have a go at you, as far as I'm concerned. And "peer reviewed" replies. Come on! Mr Morgan is demonstrating what seems to be a lack of understanding how research gets published. Directly attempting to contradict previously published research is just about impossible. No publication will normally accept another scientist reviewing the same data as a previously published study and coming to a different conclusion, even if (as in Ms Oreskes) the original research was deeply flawed. Just the way the process works. Is it fair? No. Does it advance scientific understanding? No. But editors end up with the same problems that all humans face, ego, emotional connection to what they agree to publish, the difficulty to acknowledge a mistake was made, etc, etc.

So the only peer reviewed published research that may contradict research such as this would require that someone else was looking at the same topic but using a different approach, probably at the same time as the original research.

The publication of scientific research is not some perfectly balanced system designed to advance science. It is a commercial enterprise designed to keep publishers in profit. That is not necessarily a bad thing but the limits of this system do need to be pointed out occasionally, especially if the topic becomes highly politicised and the monies involved become staggering amounts.

The points your raised are good ones. But having plowed through the seven pages you would now understand that what John/dehammer and I have been getting at is there is no science being discussed, rather news articles and opinion. Mr Morgan says that this news article supports his point that global warming is irrefutable. I don't know about the man-made bit because Mr Morgan seems to have altered his stance on that a bit. If it is not man-made then should there be any fuss at all? Kyoto and all other attempts are because of the alleged nexus between CO2 and global warming. No nexus, no Kyoto (which if every single aim was achieved would force the US to cut back 30% odd percent on its energy use for a tiny little drop in the INCREASE in the CO2). No need to donate huge amounts to Greenpeace, and all the other environmental groups. But I digress. I'm good at that.

The only science posted by Mr Morgan is a news article about the Arctic ice sheets so that is all we could work with. Does it really help Mr Morgan's argument in global warming? I think you stated that well enough. The article does not mention global warming directly. It does imply a fair bit however.

Seen from the perspective that an attempt was being made to discuss the fundamentals of global warming and the nit picking of the research does make sense.

By the way, I really would be interested if you went to the NASA site and had a bit of a look at the data and even NASA's comments about them. Find some locations that have multiple data sets. The fundamental problems with such data doesn't hit home until you bring up graph after graph that is incromplete, has multiple somewhat conflicting tracks and the majority show a cooling trend. It should take you considerably less time than reading through the seven pages here and I believe it is the best way to look at science, actually do a bit of research on your own, and the NASA site gives everyone the ability to do this without needing to download all the data (the two GHCN data sets take up a bit of space and take a long time to run anything against, I know, I have to do it).

I at least took no offence at your post. This is not a forum where anyone should have difficulty with disagreement, only with the lack of a reasonable discussion about it.

If you like, I'll pull up some research on the Arctic ice sheets and the overall locked water in the Arctic region and provide citations. It is not an area of great interest to me but I think I have about eighty studies catelogued that suggest either there is no way currently to measure the amount of ice or locked water in the arctic for longer than the satellites or that the overall locked water has increased. I have a few hundred studies that suggest that Greenland especially is loosing ice but I personally consider them to be based on poor data or manipulated data (at least the ones I've thus far reviewed). Happy to provide the citations to those as well if you like.


Regards


Richard

Sorry all; feel free to delete this post. ~Sam

Thanks Richard, but I don't want to focus on sea ice too much. I'll check out the GHCN data.
I would be interested to read the article you refer to earlier in this thread:

"I was asked to write an opinion piece for a local newspaper and went to the trouble of doing so, only to be told they didn't like what I had written. I'd just finished watching Mr Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth" and was so overawed by his child's car accident and his sister's death by lung cancer that I just knew that everything he said was unvarnished truth, not deserving of any critisicm at all. OK, so now I'm being really sarcastic but I did like the presentation. Mr Gore is a brilliant presenter. No wonder he won the presidential elections (but strangely not the position).

I rather acerbically asked the editor isn't that why they call them opinion pieces? I do not play well with others obviously and have now been banished from the sandbox.

The article is going to waste. I'll put it in a thread maybe titled "A Really Inconvenient Truth - Do Four Polar Bears Really Prove Global Warming". Anyone interested?"

emial would be fine; or as a thread....
Thanks, ~Sam

G'day Sam,

I've sent you the lecture based on the article (because knucklehead me cannot find the article) and the PowerPoint presentation in a separate email.

Tell me what you think. I'd really be interested.


Regards


Richard

RicS wrote:
"What was the posts about arctic ice that both John and I posted if they did not directly speak to your NEWS article that you have repeatedly posted?"

I asked for something that refutes the study I refered to: It does not.

My post was nothing but an integrity test. Anyone with professional integrity would know you can not, in 2006, refute work done in 2005. A position of integrity would have been to state that refuting it could not be done.

Based on your inability to acknowledge the obvious ... I have a far better understanding of how you approach the issue ... like Carl Rove ... as spin.

Spin away. The earth is as impressed as I am.

G'day Dan,

I knew I would regret responding to your post.

Your response makes no sense to me at all. Maybe I have had too much medication today but what study you referred to? I don't get that your answer actually answers the question at all.

And an integrity test? If I am reading it right, you cannot refute an earlier study because, why?, it is earlier?

And "refute"? Does that mean discuss? Does it mean critique or does it mean provide information that reasonably shows the study to be incorrect? I think you have established that your criteria for refuting a study is that the person must not make any straight observations but rather provide a link to another peer reviewed published study. A rather impossible condition, if you ask me.

I don't think I have attempted to refute this unknown study that you referred to. But I wouldn't really know because I don't quite understand what study we are refering to at all.

If we are talking about the news article about the arctic ice then the article itself has been reviewed and comments made about aspects of it in relation to global warming, because you presented this news article as if it was some form of proof to global warming. The comments relate to whether the article truly is any such form of proof rather than whether the article itself is worthy of critisicm. These are two different things.

And if you posted a request to refute a study with the full knowledge that you believed any attempt to do so whould show a lack of integrity, I would suggest that in itself shows not the best of integrity. Baiting a trap that, even when you suggest it was an integrity test, does not seem to be any such thing. Now that is a bit strange.

And to take it a bit further, disagreeing with a study because you agree with it, is in your mind a lack of integrity, is just another way of saying you believe that anyone who disagrees with you on this forum deserves a level of contempt. That's just another way of insulting someone, and not a very nice way at all because it does not even show the fortitude to do it directly.

I found the last post quite weird, Mr Morgan. Perhaps you would like to make it clearer, please, or preferably start to post something about the science of global warming and we give up on this progressively stranger digression from the topic entirely.


Regards


Richard

G'day all,

If global warming is a natural cycle then I still believe we should work towards decent monitoring and even prediction. If we are about to get colder for instance, I for one would think it very very important that we are forewarned.

If it is likely that the climate is about to change, either getting significantly warmer or returning even to a mild form of the LIA, then some planning is definitely needed to minimise the damage done to human society. If we are likely to return to a glaciation then very serious thought should be put into how best to cope.

I'm not advocating we should not attempt to monitor climate change or even attempt to improve predictions so eventually they may actually have some value. It is just like weather forecasting. It took an awful lot of work to get a day or so into the future reasonably accurate but it was worth the effort because of the huge benefits to society. If we can create prediction models of climate change that finally include enough variables to be more reliable than just guessing then that is a good thing, providing of course, that the climate is likely to change in the next few decades or less (and that is a big question since it hasn't changed much in more than 130 years).

The question will remain at what point has our ability to predict climate risen to above the level of just a guess because only then will it have any value. To attempt to utilise it before then is actually worse than no attempt at all, imho.

Just some more food for thought.

Regards


Richard