Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

[ONW]

Cite your references, or the content is pointless.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

you realize that Von Storch supports anthropogenic climate change, right? This part of the interview is most telling:

"SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?

Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.

...

SPIEGEL: In a SPIEGEL interview 10 years ago, you said, "We need to allay people's fear of climate change." You also said, "We'll manage this." At the time, you were harshly criticized for these comments. Do you still take such a laidback stance toward global warming?

Storch: Yes, I do. I was accused of believing it was unnecessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is not the case. I simply meant that it is no longer possible in any case to completely prevent further warming, and thus it would be wise of us to prepare for the inevitable, for example by building higher ocean dikes. And I have the impression that I'm no longer quite as alone in having this opinion as I was then. The climate debate is no longer an all-or-nothing debate -- except perhaps in the case of colleagues such as a certain employee of Schellnhuber's, whose verbal attacks against anyone who expresses doubt continue to breathe new life into the climate change denial camp.

SPIEGEL: Are there findings related to global warming that worry you?

Storch: The potential acidification of the oceans due to CO2 entering them from the atmosphere. This is a phenomenon that seems sinister to me, perhaps in part because I understand too little about it. But if marine animals are no longer able to form shells and skeletons well, it will affect nutrient cycles in the oceans. And that certainly makes me nervous."

 

[pourdeac]

In spite of the fact that you state it 3 or 4 times, Mann has never been discredited. He's correct.

Are you somehow referring to the whitewash by PennState? Mann was high profile. Do you think Penn State would dump on its own?

Mann's methods were found to be "flawed". At best, the statistical approach he used smoothed out the changes. At worst, he cherry picked the data (as did some others). IMO probably both.

The AR5 comments about climate variability back that up. The Mann graph (and similarly derived data) was used as the SOLE basis to form the comments in AR3/AR4 about the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age not occurring globally. The AR5 comments now state that it is highly likely there were periods of warming similar to the 20th century. That could NOT be if they believed the Mann data, ie if it was correct. It can't be. Look at the data. There is no evidence of warming before the 20th century on the Mann graph that even approaches the mid to late 20th century numbers.

 

[Lectro]

the excerpts are fine, you just never cite your sources and provide a direct link

I thought I'd entered Der Spiegel at the outset.

I will just paste the links. I thought it easier to just post the conversation.

 

[Lectro]

You do realize how far his position has moved over the last 4-5 years?

And I am sorry, but in what you quoted he cites his "instinct" as the source for his opinion going forward.

Hardly the stuff of science

you realize that Von Storch supports anthropogenic climate change, right? This part of the interview is most telling:

"SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?

Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.

...

SPIEGEL: In a SPIEGEL interview 10 years ago, you said, "We need to allay people's fear of climate change." You also said, "We'll manage this." At the time, you were harshly criticized for these comments. Do you still take such a laidback stance toward global warming?

Storch: Yes, I do. I was accused of believing it was unnecessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is not the case. I simply meant that it is no longer possible in any case to completely prevent further warming, and thus it would be wise of us to prepare for the inevitable, for example by building higher ocean dikes. And I have the impression that I'm no longer quite as alone in having this opinion as I was then. The climate debate is no longer an all-or-nothing debate -- except perhaps in the case of colleagues such as a certain employee of Schellnhuber's, whose verbal attacks against anyone who expresses doubt continue to breathe new life into the climate change denial camp.

SPIEGEL: Are there findings related to global warming that worry you?

Storch: The potential acidification of the oceans due to CO2 entering them from the atmosphere. This is a phenomenon that seems sinister to me, perhaps in part because I understand too little about it. But if marine animals are no longer able to form shells and skeletons well, it will affect nutrient cycles in the oceans. And that certainly makes me nervous."

 

[bigdoublezero]

No really, what's the deal with the correlation between buzzIN and climate change skeptics.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

You do realize how far his position has moved over the last 4-5 years?

And I am sorry, but in what you quoted he cites his "instinct" as the source for his opinion going forward.

Hardly the stuff of science

um, his position is explained right in front of you, in June 2013.

You just posted the interview as evidence of what, then, exactly? That an honest scientist reviews information as its available and makes decisions? Or was your point, again, that because a scientist changes his thoughts slightly or revises a model, that all his opinions are null (unless they're one of the 1% of scientists who disagrees with anthropogenic climate change; then beliefs are iron clad)

 

[pourdeac]

(unless they're one of the 1% of scientists who disagrees with anthropogenic climate change; then beliefs are iron clad)

That made me laugh. Critics of the theory believe the natural system is highly complex and the observed variations in temperature could entirely be natural, with man not having a large if any effect. Believers in the theory believe that man must be the problem and non-believers are morons who must be shut up.

Which viewpoint is iron clad?

 

[pourdeac]

No really, what's the deal with the correlation between buzzIN and climate change skeptics.

Maybe you should define the question the other way around. What is the correlation between BuzzOut activism and Anthrogogenic climate change activism?

Having an "iron clad" opinion....that must be acted upon immediately or we'll be in ruin...might have something to do with it.

 

[Lectro]

um, his position is explained right in front of you, in June 2013.

You just posted the interview as evidence of what, then, exactly? That an honest scientist reviews information as its available and makes decisions? Or was your point, again, that because a scientist changes his thoughts slightly or revises a model, that all his opinions are null (unless they're one of the 1% of scientists who disagrees with anthropogenic climate change; then beliefs are iron clad)

He doesn't need me.Throughout the interview he chides the alarmist positions and openly questions the accuracy of the science the IPCC has relied on. It is as if the desire to see the
results match the "instincts" has superceded the actual science. Ideology trumping method.

 

[ONW]

um, his position is explained right in front of you, in June 2013.

You just posted the interview as evidence of what, then, exactly? That an honest scientist reviews information as its available and makes decisions? Or was your point, again, that because a scientist changes his thoughts slightly or revises a model, that all his opinions are null (unless they're one of the 1% of scientists who disagrees with anthropogenic climate change; then beliefs are iron clad)

I assume his response is IDFK.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

He doesn't need me.Throughout the interview he chides the alarmist positions and openly questions the accuracy of the science the IPCC has relied on. It is as if the desire to see the
results match the "instincts" has superceded the actual science. Ideology trumping method.

so you can't read on an adult level, then. UNC grad?

 

[Spot the Wonder]

Are you somehow referring to the whitewash by PennState? Mann was high profile. Do you think Penn State would dump on its own?

Mann's methods were found to be "flawed". At best, the statistical approach he used smoothed out the changes. At worst, he cherry picked the data (as did some others). IMO probably both.

The AR5 comments about climate variability back that up. The Mann graph (and similarly derived data) was used as the SOLE basis to form the comments in AR3/AR4 about the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age not occurring globally. The AR5 comments now state that it is highly likely there were periods of warming similar to the 20th century. That could NOT be if they believed the Mann data, ie if it was correct. It can't be. Look at the data. There is no evidence of warming before the 20th century on the Mann graph that even approaches the mid to late 20th century numbers.

God, you're so full of shit. First again, Mann was not discredited by anybody, nor were his methods "flawed". Cherry picked data, my ass. If you're going to post this tripe, bring a source. It's crap that all AGW rests on Mann's hockey stick. That first come out in 1998. Science has past that, although he's still right. Ask the National Academy of Sciences

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

give it up, pour only has one (sad) drum to beat. at least lectro gives you the chance to dance.

 

[WFFaithful]

Arctic and Antarctic ice behave very differently, for a few reasons. And not just because there are penguins in the South, and Santa Claus in the North. It’s because the ice at those poles forms for different reasons, and because the ocean currents and weather patterns around them interact with global temperature in two different ways.
Indeed, it’s long been known that the higher global temperatures that cause Northern ice to melt and recede actually cause the ice shelves around Antarctica to EXPAND. That’s right; as the Earth gets warmer, ice shrinks at one pole, and expands at the other. We’ve known this since the 1970s, at least. And this was exactly the phenomena that Turney went there to study.
Far from DISPROVING Turney, and all other global warming scientists, the fact that his ship got stuck in an ice pack, in the middle of the Antarctic summer, actually proves them RIGHT. There are several competing theories as to why higher global and oceanic temperatures cause the Antarctic sea ice shelf to expand — which we’ve confirmed that they do. The truth may be one, the other, or any combination of them. But first, a little background in what the Antarctic ice shelves are.

The Antarctic ice shelves form around the continent not just because it’s cold; cold alone won’t necessarily create ice in seawater. Seawater contains salt, which means two things: it’s heavier than freshwater, and it freezes at sub-zero temperatures. It’s only at about 20-below that saturated salt water will freeze. That’s a hefty 50 degree or so difference in freezing temperatures between salt and fresh water.
In the graphic above, you can see how ocean currents cut under the ice shelf. Normally, the salty ocean at this depth would be very, very cold — well cold enough to keep the freshwater ice at the bottom of the sheet frozen. What freshwater ice might melt off the bottom of the shelf dilutes in the heavy saltwater that sweeps up from the bottom, keeping it from rising to the surface. But what freshwater DOES make it to the surface will freeze very quickly, as high winds which away what little thermal energy it has.
Which brings us to our theories on expanding ice shelves.
Expansion Theory 1 — Melting From Beneath
The first expansion theory is the simplest one. As the Earth’s temperature goes up, the temperature of the oceans rise with it. In fact, it’s in the deep oceans (which function as Earth’s “conveyor belt” of energy) that the effects of global warming would be first noticeable.
The Antarctic ice shelves long ago reached a kind of state of equilibrium, because they couldn’t expand any more, having simply run out of fresh water that was close enough to the surface to freeze. As the oceans warm past the usual 0 to 28 degrees, they carry warm water under the shelves, breaking that delicate balance and melting them from underneath.

This fresh water, being lighter, works its way up and out of the “Filchner trough,” and stays at the top when heavier and colder waters drop off the continental shelf or sweeps further our to sea. By the time it rises to the surface, the fresh water collects in comparatively still water of the holes between larger chunks of ice, or even small icebergs, and almost immediately freezes in the chilling wind. (Of course, the still, open water around the hull of a huge, metal ship also serves as a convenient nursery for ice skims.) Once a skim of ice develops, it gets more fresh water dumped on it from above.
Expansion Theory 2 — Snow
If you’ve ever been outside on a really cold day, you’ll notice that the air almost painfully bites your skin and extremities. That’s not just because of the cold itself; it’s also because the air is very dry, with all of the moisture having gotten frozen out of it. Warm bodies of water, like your body, or a puddle in the middle of yellow snow, steam in the cold, because they’re losing water vapor to the air.
As global warming turns our oceans into a nicely stagnant puddle of warm pee, more of the ocean’s moisture makes its way into the air.

That warm, moist air goes up into the atmosphere in places as far north as central Africa, and blows South over Antarctica. The moment it hits the cold air over the pole, the moisture in the air turns to snow, which drops down by the ton over Antarctica. Much of this snow (which again, is fresh water) falls on the ice skims that develop around the continent. The snow packs deep, freezes and becomes another layer of ice building from the top down. This can just as easily happen as the snow lands on open water, since it’s still fresh, still sits on the surface, and still ultimately either mixes with the saltwater or develops into thick sheets of ice.
This much, at least, accounts for the “rapid buildup of ice” that trapped the ship. Deniers are saying “that’s weather, not climate.” Because, hey..that’s Antarctica, and it snows there, right? Duh. They should have fired up the ship and left before it happened.
At the end of the day, though, it doesn’t matter as much which theory is correct…if either. It doesn’t even matter if Turney himself was correct about his every hypothesis on ice thickness and size…testing hypotheses is science, and data is data. What matters is that Antarctic ice sheets expand as the Earth warms. We know this. It’s well documented. And they’ll continue to expand — at least, up until the Earth has warmed so much that all ocean currents stop, and the seven seas turn into a stagnant cesspool of pee-warm saltwater, with billions of dead fish floating on the surface.
Not that we’ll smell them, because we’ll have died in the first century of a million-year drought.

 

[Lectro]

Bullshit. Turney went there to try and prove his claims -- he claimed there'd be extensive melting.

There has a been a distinct expansion and thickening.

CO 2 output has increased worldwide for the last 16 years yet no increase in global mean temperature.

That's what we know...not our "instinct" or "belief"...

 

[pourdeac]

God, you're so full of shit. First again, Mann was not discredited by anybody, nor were his methods "flawed". Cherry picked data, my ass. If you're going to post this tripe, bring a source. It's crap that all AGW rests on Mann's hockey stick. That first come out in 1998. Science has past that, although he's still right. Ask the National Academy of Sciences

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

I'll repost this directly out the 2013 IPCC report.

Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multidecadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the mid-20th century and in others as warm as in the late 20th century. With high confidence, these intervals were not as synchronous across seasons and regions as the warming since the mid-20th century. Based on the comparison between reconstructions and simulations, there is high confidence that not only external orbital, solar and volcanic forcing, but also internal variability, contributed substantially to the spatial pattern and timing of surface-temperature changes between the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the Little Ice Age (1450 to 1850). [5.3.5.3, 5.5.1]

They are saying they are now highly confident that recent warming is not unprecedented.

 

[pourdeac]

give it up, pour only has one (sad) drum to beat.

Yeah, it's called citing the climate scientists you believe, and note that they are backtracking on their views because the science is moving them that way. Quite sad.

 

[WFFaithful]

I'll repost this directly out the 2013 IPCC report.

They are saying they are now highly confident that recent warming is not unprecedented.

When it comes to global warming, you say what's happening now is normal based on the past. With Buzz, you refuse to look at his past to acknowledge that what's happening now is par for the course.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

if by "backtracking on their views" means "revising climate models based on the newest/based data available, sure. go nuts, bro. but not a single one of those scientists will back off of the idea of human influenced climate change. "doubt" (or ongoing study) in the system is not a condemnation of the system.