Just asking.

Perhaps you owe me an apology.

I think you mischaracterized Anthony Watts. His blog entry on the 9/11 incident is anti-”troofers”

I quote:
The Chico News and Review has gotten quite a number of letters on their 911 Truth article which gave a platform to the people whom prefer to believe that a gigantic government conspiracy was the reason behind the 911 WTC collapse, and that the towers were brought down with explosives, rather than by fire.

I wrote a short blog essay on the subject, and a letter to the editor, pointing out that the recent collapse of the I580-880 freeway interchange had a lot of similarities, illustrating that fire can indeed take town steel and concrete structures.

Predictably, the 911Truthers lobbed a couple of ticked off letters back at me, even going so far as to say I’m “spreading distortions”.
While I don’t intend to argue their points, since you can’t usually come out winning when you argue with people whom believe conspiracy theories

It seems you neglected to read what he actually wrote, and only looked at the venue in which is it was posted. This speaks volumes about your point of view.

cheers,
Robert

“If you can show me that is is not possible that the ice could have been thinner at times in the ’50’s, then most certainly the post is erroneous.”

The question is not whether the ice COULD have been thinner — of course it could. The question is whether there is any good reason to BELIEVE that it was. The fact that submarines could find holes in the ice cover in the 50′s is consistent with the ice being thinner, but it’s also consistent with the ice being just as thick, or possibly even thicker (I don’t know how easily submarines can find holes in the ice cover now). In other words, it’s not a good reason to think that the ice is actually thicker today than in the 50′s.

And then, there are good reasons to think it’s thinner now. There are no cooling trends apparent in the data for the 20th century on the scale of a 30 year trend, so the notion that the ice was thin in the 50′s, bounced back in time for the start of satellite measurements in the 70′s, and has been in decline since then is simply not supported by the evidence (well, the decline since the 70′s is, but not the build up from the 50s to 70s).

I just got your other comment. I’m not familiar with tamino: I will certainly read what he/she to say.

Again, let me say that this discussion has helped me to re-examine some of my opinions on this issue.

Sigh. Okay–let’s try and end this endless tennis match.

I know a little bit about subs and polynya. I know that a sub doesn’t just punch through any portion of the ice pack.

Your original statement was that Watts was “trying to erroneously imply that because many submarines surfaced at breaks in the Arctic Ice in the past then ice cover in the past must have been as weak as it is reported to be today.” We have no firm data about the thickness of the ice pack in the 50′s as compared to today. But we do have scientists like Serreze from NSIDC who strongly suggested that the Arctic could be ice free–during the summer of 2008.

If you can show me that is is not possible that the ice could have been thinner at times in the ’50′s, then most certainly the post is erroneous.

Can you?!

Watts prime concern is how substandard surface temperature measuring stations are. This is basic to determining just how much the globe is warming. Even “troofers” have acknowledged that Watts is pointing out a relevant issue that needs to be addressed. Do you have a problem with this aspect of his work?

Yes I do – because he starts from an erroneous principle – that substandard measuring stations are not accounted for in compiling data.

Don’t take my word on it – here’s some links, which will expand upon the issue:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/surface-stations/

*Note that Watts presents the Orland and Marysville data in a style that gives a false impression.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/

*Satellite and Surface Station data are in agreement.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=454

* Watts’ Mistaken Assumptions.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/page2.html

* The Goddard Institute for Space Studies methodology for dealing with the Urban Heat Island Effect in data.

Regarding Submarines and Arctic Ice Cover

In response to Watts trying to link submarines surfacing in ice-free pockets in the 50 to proving that ice coverage was spotty then, you write:

As far as the Arctic, we don’t have satellite measurements from the 50’s, so it is possible that the ice may have been thinner and weaker in previous years. I understand that Arctic ice area cover has diminished over the last 30 years, but that was not what you were talking about.

Yup, what I was talking about was that fact that Watts’ thesis was erroneous. You’ve side-stepped that – but I will press on.

Submarines like to surface where there is little ice, and if they can find areas with no ice – polynya being one such type of area – then they surface there.

Finding pictures of submarines surfaced at holes in the Arctic ice sheet have no bearing on overall Arctic ice coverage – as submarines seek such areas out!

Do you understand?

And here, from Captain Richard Sharpe RN, is an indication of how long submarines had to sail in the early 60s to find such ‘holes’:

If you plan to surface it may take well over 12 hours to find a suitable polynya or thin area of ice.

(from http://naval.review.cfps.dal.ca/forum/view.php?topic=46)

Supported by the experience of the Nautilus and by her own research, training, and improved instrumentation, the Skate dashed northward via the deep-water eastern routh, reaching the Pole just eight days after the Nautilus. After considerable searching and an anxious ascent, the Skate managed to surface in a tiny pond just forty miles from the Pole (Page 254 of The Rickover Effect, USS Skate’s first polar trip of Summer 1958)

The Skate did in fact return to the Pole, in 1959, and did so in March, the coldest, most inhospitable time of the year.
…she managed to find a tiny spot in the immediate vicinity of the Pole where the ice was thin enough to break through. (from Page 255 of The Rickover Effect)

(from The Rickover Effect By Theodore Rockwell, accessed from Google Books)

So, can you see how Watts’ Submarine piece is erroneous?

Can you?!

Oh wow. I give up. You win.

Funny how I was able to have a pretty decent conversation with several commenters; I’m sorry you weren’t one of them.

Unlike some commentors, I don’t suffer fools gladly and you are a fool.

You’re still here?

Perhaps you have not read any of my recent posts. I suggest you take a moment to do so.
I think I mentioned both Pielke and Christy in a previous post. I wasn’t trying to convince anyone of anything.

You obviously have no idea what ad hominem means. I also suggest you look it up. More than one commenter has called you out on it; that usually means you should pay attention.

Funny how I was able to have a pretty decent conversation with several commenters; I’m sorry you weren’t one of them.

Dr. Dave D accuses anyone who points out that Spencer and Watts are nutcases because of their whackjob anti-evolution and 9/11 troofer beliefs as engaging in ad hominem attacks. I have suggested that Dr. Dave D cite respectable scientists like Roger Pielke but apparently Mr. Pielke isn’t sufficiently skeptical for the formers’ taste. Give it up Dr. Dave D, you aren’t going to convince anyone by citing whackjobs and energy company shills.

Perhaps, it would be more accurate to say she attended college!

Watts to his credit printed Prof. Itoh’s clarification. I don’t know that I would characterize a seeming plateau in temps recently, or the fact that the sun is disturbingly quiet right now as voodoo science. As far as the Arctic, we don’t have satellite measurements from the 50′s, so it is possible that the ice may have been thinner and weaker in previous years. I understand that Arctic ice area cover has diminished over the last 30 years, but that was not what you were talking about. In fact, there are some recent measurements of ice thickness made by a German team that show thicker ice than what researchers had predicted (radiobremen.de/wissen/nachrichten/wissenawipolararktis100.html; Google can translate).

Watts prime concern is how substandard surface temperature measuring stations are. This is basic to determining just how much the globe is warming. Even “troofers” have acknowledged that Watts is pointing out a relevant issue that needs to be addressed. Do you have a problem with this aspect of his work?

@Gray Gaffer–
Thank you for your clear comments. The IPCC is a governmental body, not necessarily a scientific one, and is not composed primarily of climate scientists. I don’t just toss out everything they say, but I tend to take it with a grain of salt. Statements like “theories that have survived the test of utility” and “large body of theoretical knowledge that has predictive capabilities” are, in my opinion, a bit of an exaggeration. Climate science has a long way to go before it can achieve the predictive foundation that evolution or plate tectonics has achieved. No one is asking that the climate models be perfect by any means.

It is sad that anyone who questions any aspect of GCC/AGW seems to automatically be labeled as some kind of idiot or crackpot, whether they are “deniers’ or “skeptics.” I feel that there is still a place for reasoned debate and investigation on the subject of climate change, esp given the rather nascent state of climate science at this time. This discussion has helped me to re-examine some of my opinions on this issue, and I appreciate commenters like yourself and Dan L. for furthering the discussion, rather than stooping to name-calling and ad hominem attacks.

“Again you employ ad hominem attacks, and the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. None of these support your straw man arguments.”

Well, I haven’t employed any ad hominem attacks, and if deferring to expertise is an “appeal to authority,” then I must assume you never go to the doctor or the mechanic, never call the plumber, do all your own electrical work, etc. Why don’t you actually make a substantive argument against the crux of AGW if you actually want anyone to take you seriously. Accusing others of logical fallacies doesn’t actually strengthen your point.

“trying to erroneously imply . . .” In what way is Watt “erroneous?”

I’ll break it down, but first I’ll repost my short description of the problem:

Recently he posted a piece on his site entitled “Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick” trying to erroneously imply that because many submarines surfaced at breaks in the Arctic Ice in the past then ice cover in the past must have been as weak as it is reported to be today.

How can you compare the fact that submarines will try and surface at breaks in the Arctic ice pack with satellite observations of reducing Arctic ice cover and thickness going back 30 years? One concerns a very small area (where the Submarine has surfaced) and the other covers the whole of the Arctic! Erroneous. If you feel it is not then please elucidate.

“I’ll note that you’ve avoided comment on Watts’ mendacity.”

Please strike that out. I missed your:

“Neither one of these examples speaks to your claim that Watts is mendacious.”

Really? He represents a group of people invited to expand on their mainly denialist views in a Journal as a ‘Subcommittee of the JSER”

By that twisted logic I’m a member of the Board of the Journals Applied Physics A, and Chemical Engineering Journal

David D: I bow to the results of over 10,000 scientist-years of study on this issue. I have solid grounding in scientific methodology, and until I have the finances and time to spend 10 years repeating the groundwork and statistical analysis supporting GCC I accept the results from those with similar training in the area of their particular specialty. If you disagree with them be aware that you are disagreeing with theories that have survived the test of utility. Unless you have to hand counter-theories that also have demonstrated utility all you have is opinion. GCC / AGW is not an opinion. It is a large body of theoretical knowledge that has predictive capabilities. We may argue about the size of the error bars or what counts as forcing input, but those are the froth on top of the substance. Reality does not care about our opinions, and will slap us around regardless if we place opinions higher in our estimations.

So my reasoned arguments start with the IPCC document. Which is only “cherry-picked” if you consider including properly worked out science and excluding erroneous, poorly executed, or just plain bad science, to be “cherry picking”.

When it comes to lone voices winning out against the establishment (a denier argument not made yet on this blog, but I want to forestall it), I would point out that those success stories (plate tectonics, badlands ice-wall floods, asteroid impact 65 million years ago, etc) the loners dedicated their lives to the study and the scoffers did not. In fact, GCC itself is such a loner win.

I’ve also lived a good while on this Earth and noticed changes, changes that are consistent with the GCC theories and not the denier’s typical mis-use, misunderstanding, or outright lies about the science. So I have first hand anecdotal evidence as well as my respect for the professionals the deniers so love to insult.

I will also re-iterate: GCC is but one of several arguments for the steps we need to take towards its mitigation. There are multiple arguments for those same actions, from which we will derive National Security, economic, health, and joy of life, benefits. Any one of them is in my mind sufficient to embark on the changes, and as all of them together point the same way I think it insane that we as a society are still arguing against them. Time is running out on being able to implement them at all. If GCC doesn’t get us the economic collapse will. Or the terrorists. Or Idiocracy.

Appendix: “utility” and “theory” are very specific terms in this context. A scientific “theory” is a set of mathematical relations that describe some aspect of reality. It has “utility” if its predictions are close enough to be useful. To that extent it has risen above being a mere “hypothesis”. Authorship is irrelevant in that any such theory can be used by anyone who can handle its mechanics. Remember, this way of thinking brought us the technology behind this blog. Technology which did not exist at all, not even in SF, when I was a kid. Reality again. GCC / AGW theories have the same pedigree.

Re: JSER and Watts

I checked the post about the JSER; there is an update (not sure what date) with an explanation from one of the authors of the paper. Whether or not the authors are a subcommittee of JSER or that their discussion was published in the JSER journal does not seem to detract from the science.

I’ll note that you’ve avoided comment on Watts’ mendacity.

Even Dr Itoh’s comments show Watts’ twisting:

“The article of JSER has been composed of discussions between the five contributors, made through e-mail for several months, and was organized by Prof. Yoshida of Kyoto University (an editor of the JSER journal). Our purpose was to invoke healthy discussions on the global warming issue in Japan. The JSER journal was selected as a platform for this discussion just because Prof. Yoshida has a personal interest in this issue and he is an editor of the journal.

Thus, it is not correct if one thinks that the discussion represents the opinion of the journal’s editors or of the society JSER. In fact, none of the five contributors belong to the JSER, and Prof. Yoshida kept his attitude neutral in the article.”

As for the science, obviously there is more bearing if the published articles were as a result of a pertinent professional body investigating the science (Watts’ ‘Subcommittee’ lie), as opposed to the fact that they were invited discussion pieces written largely by denialists to give their views.

In fact, if you check back to the actual partial translation of the discussion piece in The Register you get the usual voodoo science:

* No warming since 2001
* It’s the sunspots!
* Models are not perfect (nothing is!)

Nothing new, no breakthroughs, no new insights – just a rehash of stale old canards.

http://www.ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve

The arguments have been refuted. Check out the RealClimate web site for refutation. Nothing will be gained by copying and pasting arguments from that web site here, just a waste of bandwidth and storage. The climate change denialists who comment here and elsewhere would be better served by not quoting nutcases like evolution denier Roy Spencer and 9/11 troofer Anthony Watts. There actually are a few reputable scientists such as Roger Pielke who are sane, sober individuals with no axes to grind, but who depart from the scientific consensus, at least at present.

Re George

On-line petitions are a dime a dozen and are totally meaningless. The Discovery Institute has an on-line petition currently numbering more then 700 names of scientists who question the theory of evolution. There is another on-line petition currently with at least 135 names of scientists who question big bang cosmology. There is another on-line petition of scientists who question the relationship of HIV and AIDS (I don’t recall the number of signatories to this one). I would be willing to bet that there are on-line petitions denying the relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer, denying the relationship between CFCs and ozone depletion, and denying the Holocaust.