ClimateEtc. was down supposedly for TOS violations. It’s back up. I learned it was down moments before it was up again and emailed Judy. Here’s the response:
hi lucia, mysteriously it is back up. NO IDEA what happened. Judy
Maybe we’ll learn what happened. Maybe it was a glitch! Glad it’s back.
It is not up for me. 2:22 p.m. CST.
I made the mistake of visiting Scientific American where a lack of science seems the norm. Take a look at the exchanges here
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/11/14/climate-change-denier-likely-to-lead-congressional-science-committee/
Rob–
Over on that thread, one of the people arguing with you wrote
“If she provides all the details of her simulations and re-opens her comment thread, I will be happy to review her methodology and comment. She must give where she obtained the models (not all models are publically available, especially the fully-implemented versions rather than dumb-down versions) and/or provide the code/software. I really doubt she actually ran 11 fully implemented models.”
I’ll be happy to answer his questions here.
He seems rather confused about what this post intends to convey.
Too much st*pidity too little time.
I can not access her site. What’s going on?
WordPress apparently is chasing its tail. I am having no problems.
Carrick/Rob–
I went over there. If the person who claims he would be glad to discuss it here comes over here, I’ll be happy to discuss it. Here would be more convenient than there because a) I get emails when comments are posted, b) we can use latex in comments, c) I can easily post new graphs if those are helpful.
I’m not having any problems accessing Judy’s site either.
Re
lucia (Comment #106470)
November 15th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
… b) we can use latex in comments, …
I presume for math. True? Simply mark up the formulae? E.g.
\[ j_0(x)=\frac{1}{\pi} \int^\pi_0 cos(sin\theta)d\theta \]
I hope I did that sans error.
//edit: Well, that was a bust. :/
cheers,
gary
lucia (Comment #106470)
> Carrick/Rob– I went over there…
.
Over there, Scientific American author Christine Gorman wrote a polemical post titled “Climate Change Denier Likely to Lead Congressional Science Committee.” Amusingly, to damn the third of the Congresscritter contenders with his own words, she quotes the sensible-sounding Rep. Sensenbrenner saying:
In a sardonic parting shot, Gorman quips, “Meanwhile, scientific evidence is mounting that climate change is happening faster than most models had predicted.”
Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, Gorman and those supporting the Consensus position appear to be either ill-informed or innumerate.
Rather than hope that that discussion turns productive, I’m going to buy a PowerBall ticket. The odds are better.
Gary Turner:
I got all let help from folks the other day. Try with the ‘!!!’ deleted from ‘$!!!latex’:
$!!!latex \displaystyle \left[ j_0(x) = \frac{1}{\pi} \int^\pi_0 cos(sin\theta)d\theta \right] $
$latex \displaystyle \left[ j_0(x) = \frac{1}{\pi} \int^\pi_0 cos(sin\theta)d\theta \right] $
“all let help” -> a little help
sigh, too early, too careless
I guess it is working now, but for some reason not with Chrome.
Lucia
I noticed that you stopped by at SA and commented. Thank you. I acknowledge I just guessed that arctic ice was not lower than had been projected in AR4. It seems like the trend from 2007 had not been significantly negative until this year. Can you reference a reliable data source to compare the trend vs what was projected?
Rob–
2007 was a record low– and by a long shot. It doesn’t make sense to “notice” the trend since the record low– and a level that was even an outlier relative to the pre-existing trends– was not significantly negative and make some sort of conclusion that the ice is not decaying rapidly. The sea ice is decaying rapidly.
As for ice resources: No. I don’t keep a trove handy. I mostly don’t argue about the ice. But the rate of loss is faster than in the AR4. If you need specifics, you’ll have to dig up your own stuff.
lucia (Comment #106470): “Carrick/Rob– I went over there…”
Apparently you didn’t. 😉
Over there, I see this:
My head hurts. I *really* shouldn’t have visited there.
HaroldW–
Yes. I’m finding that conversation confusing. “Cramer” seems angry responded to “Bird”– who admittedly was pretty darn rude to Starkey. (Suggestions of oral sex? Sci America really doesn’t moderate for nastiness, do they?) But when I showed up, Bird at least thanked me for opening comments, and seems to be open to the idea of discussing what I really claim– he just says he’s busy. Meanwhile “Cramer” who I think said he’d be happy to comment here if the comments were open… seems to develop the impression I’m Rob… because… why? Rob can’t open comments here! Oh well.
That thread is a good advertisement for staying away from threads at places like Scientific America!
AMac (Comment #106473):
Unfortunately, “articles” like Gorman’s are why I terminated my subscription to SA over 5 years ago. SA used to be an enjoyable monthly read, a guilty pleasure of sorts for over 20 years, but they became more interested in format than function several years ago and went off the deep end for sensationalist articles, popular and trendy but unscientific editorial biases and lost a lot of their century-old journalistic and scientific integrity. A great shame and loss.
Gorman’s reply in the blog comments shows clearly why she should NOT be writing for SA or any other scientific publication although I’m sure her editorials would be entirely at home and appropriate in other publications.
Rob Starkey: “Can you reference a reliable data source to compare the [Arctic ice] trend vs what was projected?”
Rob, for projections, start with Figure 10.13 from IPCC AR4 WG1. For actuals, there’s this chart, although its format doesn’t match the IPCC figure’s. You can take its raw data (link on that page) and do a little calculation to make a more direct comparison.
HaroldW–
Oddly, I didn’t even read the article by Gorman. Rob wanted me to get engaged about what I had posted. I saw someone expressed interest in discussing it here if I opened comments. So… I… opened… comments. Oh. Well.
HaroldW
I guess you meant this?
I read the article. Zero science. Mostly a discussion of political posturing in Congress. If that’s typical of Scientific American, then I guess the title contains the only “science” in the magazine!
I guess the issue of whether arctic ice is melting faster than was expected depends upon the perspective from which to question was asked. Shortly after AR4 was released I recall estimates that there would be a much more rapid decline than has been observed (until this year). I looked back through AR4 and see nothing definitive to make a comparison against.
Lucia one of the geniuses seems convinced that you and rob are one in the same.
dr loo needs to visit them
Eli once suggested that Lucia and I were the same person.
THC inhibits reasoning. It’s fact, I’m just stating facts.
I the opinion of reader here, was I out of line in my comments at SA?
Mosher–
Yes. “Cramer” seems to think Rob==Lucia. Why I would create a sock-puppet that disagrees with me on things like sea ice I do not know…. We’ll see if Cramer comes here to discuss the post — as he said he would before I reopened comments– or if he decides not to do so based on his continued belief that I am Rob.
There are a number of very hilarious things about comment over there. For example: Evidently, they are moderated. The sorts of comments that pass moderation include:
I can’t help but wonder what sorts of things are banned?
Rob–
No. I don’t think you were out of line.
I’m just saying I think the sea ice is melting faster than projected. You appear to think otherwise. We’ve each expressed opposite opinions on this over at SA. But for some reason, Cramer seems to have concluded that two people who express the opposite view on the sea ice are the same person. It boggles the mind.
Anyway, I would think it’s pretty obvious I’m not you. For one thing… I opened comments. You wouldn’t be able to do that. Plus… seriously… did you take over my twitter account? Etc. What a hoot.
SA seems to be a site where the publishers and many of the readers do not wish to have exchanges that openly discuss the real issues- imo. I go there because it seems like a fairly typical example of how the general public views the issue and SA seems so disposed to be biased in what is published.
Harold- Thanks for your links on sea ice, but I had already looked at those but do not see where we would be below what was projected. Sorry if I am being thick.
Lucia
I agree if that the idea that we are the same person was laughable. Strangely enough, I have been accused of being both Willis and Mosher at that site. That is the only place I do npt post under my own name. It really is out of habit as that is how I initially logged in and I never bothered changing. I do believe that people tend to be more civil if they post their name correctly.
Regarding arctic sea ice I acknowledge I do not have any data to support the conclusion I wrote at SA.
Rob–
Usually, one expects people to discuss the topic of the blog post. In the case of that blog post, I think you were supposed to discuss what’s happening in Congress. But for some reason, the author derailed all that by dropping in a ‘science’ type claim– though she worded it to be as vague as possible. “Climate change happening” is rather mushy. Is it happening when ice melts? When temperatures rise? Or what?
Then her support for that claim is scientific america magazine article– whose support for their claim is equally pitiful. When I was a kid I thought Scientific America was about science. Admittedly… we didn’t have a subscription. So I don’t know if it actually was about science or if it was just a magazine that mostly discussed politics touching on science even then.
Whatever the history about that periodical might be, that blog post– and the one it links– is about politics. I don’t mean this in a derogatory way– but articles about who is going to be appointed to Congressional committees are about politics. They don’t magically transform into something else by wrapping them in a cover that says “Scientific America”.
Rob… I’m pondering….
If
Lucia= Rob and
Rob=Mosher=Willis.
Then Lucia=Willis.
What a thought!!!! I better moderate myself.
Lucia, have I missed something in this exchange?
Facts:-
The models are predicated on CO2 forcing driving temperature rise.
The models have underestimated the observed rate of loss of Arctic sea ice and overestimated (ok, got the sign wrong) of the observed rate of loss of Antarctic sea ice.
Don’t these observations imply that something other than CO2 is driving ice extent variations? Something which is entirely missing from model physics and parameters!
Isn’t the hypothesis that CO2 forcing drives sea ice extent falsified as a result?
Gras, I think it would be more like “natural variability plays a larger role than suggested by the GCMs.”
It would only falsify the CO2 forcing hypothesis if you could control for every other variable, that is if the GCMs had an incredibly higher fidelity than they currently exhibit.
After all the inability of a model to reproduce data could mean the underlying physics is wrong, the data are wrong, or the model doesn’t faithfully reproduce the phenomenologically relevant underlying physics.
Gras–
Models under estimate the observed rate of loss in the NH Arctic sea ice. That by itself tells us nothing about why. Any or all of the following could be the reason:
1) The models underestimate natural variability.
2) Owing to the cold bias in models, and the fact that ice melts at 32 C (not an anomaly value) the dramatic melt off occurs at a lesser amount of warming relative to the earth baseline compared to the model baseline.
3) Something not contained in models matters a lot to sea ice. Black carbon? Something?
4) There are phenomenology unique to circulation at the pole that aren’t quite right for ice. (That is: the ice part of the model might be somewhat deficient.)
5) Warming is not due to CO2.
You want to believe (5) is the only option. But it’s not. Under 1-4, CO2 can cause warming and models can incorrectly predict the absolutely level of sea ice and the rate at which it melts. The fact that models incorrectly predict sea ice melt doesn’t mean the CO2 hypothesis is wrong. In fact– the CO2 hypothesis is almost certainty right. So it would be wiser to spend quite a bit of time checking out 1-4 before jumping on your favorite- 5.
mwgrant (Comment #106480) :
Thank you.
I do hope that Eli or Dr. Lewandumski have a visit over there and cure them of their conspiratorial thinking.
Next people will think that I am bender, merely because he shows up when I call his name.
Where is bender?
Lucia, you remarked ” When I was a kid I thought Scientific American was about science. Admittedly… we didn’t have a subscription. So I don’t know if it actually was about science or if it was just a magazine that mostly discussed politics touching on science even then.”
I can assure you that it was once predominantly about science. Scientific American was in all important Czech scientific libraries even in 50′-60’s, when everything ideological/political from the West was censored.
I think he has to say the name three times…
As a wanna-be marine biologist I took a biology class my freshman year that had a Scientific American book The Brain as the text.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Brain-Scientific-American-Library/dp/0716711516
Not a lick of editorials in that baby, just meaty articles I assumed were originally published in SA. How the mighty have fallen.