the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Dreaming of a Green Christmas

Posted by Jeff Id on August 22, 2011

Below is a ‘scary-ish’ plot from Joe Romm’s Climate Regress blog.  It shows several things including the heavily processed data of Arctic Sea Ice Volume which is one of the more unreliable datasets available for sea ice with exponential curve fit projections laid on top.  Currently in 2011 we are looking at a potential new record low sea ice for the Arctic which I think we will hit – or maybe not.   We may even hit a global record low.  Of course the record is only 30 years long but that is another issue entirely.  If I had a set of links for blogs I don’t read, Climate Regress would top it.  I suppose though that there are a number of ways to donate your mind to science, I just prefer to wait until I’m dead to self lobotomize.   Just to be really clear,  I blame Lucia and Carrick at Lucia’s blog for making me read his post and any additional loss of my already scarce IQ is on their hands. So what do we learn from Joe’ s post? Well we learn not to project non-linear curves past the end of a dataset. Of course you should learn that very early in college but the temptation is always there.  Ya see, the end of the curve sticking out past the data does whatever it wants.  You can pick all kinds of crazy functions and it is without any doubt that with the right equation, we could fit a curve to the data better than Joe and have the ‘prediction’ on the right launch into the sky in a manner which would make all of paleoclimatology smile. But that wouldn’t be as scary for sea ice would it. The 2022ish projected zero December ice volume does make one wonder what the temperature of the Arctic is in December doesn’t it?  After all, even in climatology, sea ice is related to temperature. Here is a temperature table from the Inukjuak temperature station in Greenland Arctic circle: The mean temperature in December is a whopping -18.1 C.   So  for a zero ice volume condition in December, wouldn’t you expect something a little warmer.  Perhaps near zero C?  I dunno, being just an engineer, but it seems possible that unless we see at least 15 C of warming in the next 10 years, Joe Romm might have given this post a tiny tweak of exaggeration. Naw. With a name like Climate Progress, any questioning of the text would be anti-scientific. Yes the ice might melt completely someday – again.  Yes it could possibly be created in part by human emitted CO2, but Joe’s post is blatantly designed to trick the unwitting into believing that doom is imminent so that he can get the political result he wants. Progress? Of course the prediction he made is idiotic, an entire month of December with zero average sea ice in 10 years??!!  I’ll bet Joe (or any blogger) that not one single December day from the years 2020 to 2030 will be ice free in the Arctic. How is that for specific.   None of the nuanced language of Joe’s post there eh?

Sea ice Area - Cryosphere

Anyone want to take that bet? How about November?  Joe’s plot shows November ice done, gone, finito, by by, all before 2020. A more unrealistic projection is hard to imagine. It makes you wonder if the guy has ever been outdoors North of Washington DC in December. Joe must be either nearing retirement or trying to bring back the ‘most extreme predictions’ posts.  Hard to say, but with such prestigious awards available to climate science, it is easy to understand the temptation to try.


114 Responses to “Dreaming of a Green Christmas”

  1. Jim Ken said

    Hi Jeff,
    I am very impressed with the information and with the all analyzed data.

  2. Neven said

    Jeff, maybe you could look a bit further, see where the graph comes from, and what the maker of the graph says about the graph. In fact, you could also just read Romm’s post itself and see that right below the graph he writes:

    “The plot makes projections with simple quadratic trend lines (details here), which likely oversimplify matters as we approach zero volume (especially for non-summer months).”

    This is a nice piece on December temperatures in the Arctic, but it hasn’t got much to do with the Romm piece you link to.

  3. KevinUK said

    Neven,

    Jeff’s article is pointing out how stupid it is to extrapolate curve fitted data and in particular how really stupid it is to extrapolate teh data well beyond the range of its validity (as like climate modellers do in their GCMs).

    Only an ill-informed naive idiot would do that and since that’s exactly what Joe Romm (and sadly most climate modellers) has done on this occasion then clearly Joe Romm is an idiot.

  4. Neven said

    Kevin,

    Jeff’s article is pointing out how stupid it is to extrapolate curve fitted data and in particular how really stupid it is to extrapolate teh data well beyond the range of its validity (as like climate modellers do in their GCMs).

    Again, Romm himself says the graph is oversimplifying things, and if you go and find out who made the graph and what he says about it himself, you’ll see he never presented it as a done deal. The graph first showed up here, and this is what the maker said about it:

    “I have never claimed that it is “a predictor of an ice free Arctic”, and I would be grateful if you would desist from suggesting that I have. If you choose to view it as a “predictor” that is your business. So far from claiming that it is, I have repeatedly affirmed that it is not.

    I have only EVER claimed that quadratic curves fit the PAST data better than the linear fit shown on the graph on the PSC website, but have as often reminded that while a better fit, a quadratic is unlikely to be an accurate model of what is happening.”

    Some other interesting statistical work was done that makes the curve look more ‘realistic’, but here as well the author states that “extrapolating curves is a what-if exercise, not based upon physical understanding. Sometimes a statistical approach yields predictions fairly close to those obtained from more sophisticated physical models, but how well any prediction anticipates the real Arctic will be tested in the months and years ahead.”

    Linear fit, exponential fit, quadratic, Gompertz, whatever. The main point is: Until things reverse, the trend is downwards. Much faster than anticipated.

  5. Jeff Id said

    Neven,

    “Oversimplifying” has nothing to do with it.

    Joe has posted a bogus extrapolation with the title death spiral and the disclaimers in the text. The graph was designed to trick the unwitting and support the bogus title, and he should apologize for creating the thing in the first place. Flatly dishonest alarmist crap posted by a man who claims expertise.

    Imagine if I did similar things here.

  6. Neven said

    Alarmist? You really don’t feel that developments in the Arctic are alarming. How can you be so sure that nothing at all is the matter? I don’t think you can just wipe it off the table because you don’t like the implications or lack the knowledge to truly assess the situation. Just as I said to Lucia this week: there really is no sense in going after Romm. He doesn’t even need to exaggerate or distort, or whatever you’d like to accuse him of, because things are plenty disquieting as they are.

    I for one really hope things start to slow down or reverse soon, because the rate of change is far from reassuring. There aren’t any signs as of yet. I hope they show up soon.

  7. Mike Davis said

    Neven:
    It all depends on who did the anticipating! It also depends on what agenda is being advanced which claim is made!

  8. Neven – don’t you worry. Like with hurricanes, the day the Arctic doesn’t look “alarming” Romm will be busy pointing out some other “death spiral” indicator. Yawn.

  9. Mike Davis said

    Neven:
    We cross posted!
    You really need to study the history of the Arctic region! There is nothing going on there now that has not happened in the past. The only thing different and the only thing new is the Satellites and the Human Induced Climate Catastrophe that are fueling the current ramblings of the Chicken Little Brigade.

  10. Jeff Id said

    Neven,

    If you are going to be alarmed about ice melting then you should do it based on reality and not bogus projections. If he really doesn’t have to exaggerate, then why did he?

    As to my opinions of sea ice, I have a hard time being concerned about it because I don’t believe it is as stable as the most popular paleo guys have claimed (there is discussion of this in literature) and it is not required for anyones survival, polar bears included. All that aside, when we see a little bit of weather pattern change, we shouldn’t panic, we should be thankful for a little warmth during our time. It wasn’t that long ago when the little ice age hit.

    You know what’s even worse. In the middle of his post, he makes the claim that we could still stop these curves by shutting off the power. There is nothing in AGW science which would support that statement whatsoever – unless you are the one who believes in a zero lag time between CO2 and warming. He’s alarmist and dishonest with both the data and the solutions. Oddly both point in the anti-prosperity direction supported by the improperly self-titled progressives.

  11. Neven said

    Guys, I basically have said what I had to say. You can go on and do whatever you like that makes you feel more comfortable.

  12. It’s not that easy…this “it’s all in the disclaimers” excuse has already been used to death wrt “hide the decline”. So if the sea ice cover in November is shown as falling to zero, no disclaimer text will suffice as explanation.

  13. Mike Davis said

    Maurizio:
    You tend to say it better and with a bit more tact than I would!

  14. CoRev said

    Neven, you did the same trick at Lucia’s, and left. Ho Hum!

    BTW, the crux of the postitions lies in you statement: “Alarmist? You really don’t feel that developments in the Arctic are alarming. How can you be so sure that nothing at all is the matter?… He doesn’t even need to exaggerate or distort, or whatever you’d like to accuse him of, because things are plenty disquieting as they are.”

    Really? It is the alarmism, catastrophism, and extremism that gets the “believer” community’s panties in a wad. Geological history show that this ole planet moves in a rather narrow climate range. The more recent prevalent history is cold and not warmth. There have also been extremes in GHGs, especially CO2.

    So fearing nature and trying to stabilize the weather at some benign norm ain’t going to happen. Using pejorative terms as “alarmist” is actually a more insightful term than “denier.”

  15. Neven said

    Neven, you did the same trick at Lucia’s, and left.

    CoRev, what use is there in discussing things further? We’ll just wind each other up, and in the end you will still all believe that there is nothing wrong whatsoever, and I will still be worried that the agriculture that my daughter will depend upon in the future will be f*cked up due to things changing so fast.

    Romm is not important, the ice is. We’ll see what the ice does. But if it goes, things won’t stop there. I hope you do realize that and try not to oversimplify things.

    Wishing everyone all the best…

  16. Frank K. said

    Neven said
    August 23, 2011 at 7:40 am

    “Alarmist? You really don’t feel that developments in the Arctic are alarming?”

    Actually – NO.

    What happened in the arctic before ice 1979? How about 100 years ago…500 years ago…1000 years ago…10,000 years ago…100,000 years ago

    And remember, the concept of an “ice-free arctic” is a myth – there will always be ice, even in the summer.

    And also remember that the ice will refreeze very nicely in the winter – why does everyone forget that? Why does everyone focuses on September but conveniently forgets March?

  17. lucia said

    Neven–
    First: Romm showed the huge-ass enormous graph immediately below a title that reads — in large cap bold “Arctic Death Spiral: Sea Ice Passes De Facto Tipping Point Thanks to Deniers, Media Blow The Story, Again”.

    Then, tiny dense type explains the graph, and contains the mealy mouth “likely oversimplify matters”. Likely oversimplify? Shouldn’t that be edited: “is obviously flat out wrong as we approach zero volume (in 2015 to 2025 depending on which month you mean?)”

    And then his mealy mouth “likely oversimplify” is followed by “But reversal of the overall death spiral is highly implausible absent an even more implausible reversal of current climate policies — policies which are promoted by denier disinformation and sustained by media stenography”

    Yep. Death spiral. Whatever that might mean.

    You want people to believe that Romm doesn’t convey BS. Well, the mere decision to show that graph is conveying BS.

    He doesn’t even need to exaggerate or distort,

    Whether he needs to or not, the fact is he does.

    I for one really hope things start to slow down or reverse soon,

    You do realize Joe’s graph shows things speeding up. Right?

  18. lucia said

    By “Joe’s graph”, I mean “the graph Joe grabbed from another blog and showed at his blog.”

  19. Joezee said

    So, 46 glacial-interglacial periods in the last 2.6 Mil years and there is all this concern about some ice melting in the arctic?

  20. curious said

    15 – Something to help you relax:

    http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/3680-new-paper-shows-no-change-in-bering-sea-ice-over-past-30-years.html

    18 – Shame the original author didn’t choose to stretch a sine curve through the data, then we could all look to 2070 and join Neven in chilling out…

  21. Andrew said

    15-“I will still be worried that the agriculture that my daughter will depend upon in the future will be f*cked up due to things changing so fast.”

    For there to be problems for agriculture, one has to imagine that the long term trend towards ever greater yields will suddenly come to an end. Now who exactly believes in implausible reversals of history?

  22. gallopingcamel said

    Neven,
    How could anyone see an ice free arctic ocean as a bad thing? One the arctic is ice free, how long will it take to melt the 3,000+ meters of ice at the GISP2 site in Greenland?

    Once the GISP2 site is free of ice we will be back to the situation 75,000 years ago, the most recent time when that site was ice free.

    And while we are at it, what about an ice free Antarctice to return things to the way they were 800,000 years ago? Plants and animals did really well during the periods when the poles were free of ice.

  23. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I would have to agree with Neven here, in that on but minor reflection, the graphs and there extrapolations are “no brainers” and probably not deserving of much discussion.

  24. KevinUK said

    Ken

    What do you mean by ‘no brainers’ in this instance. I presume you mean that the person who produced them has ‘no brain’?

    But for teh fact this is obvious the usual Joe Romm scare tactic I’d agree with that its ‘not deserving of much discussion’ but in this case we can’t let the Joe Romm’s of this world get away with it.

  25. lucia said

    Kenneth Fritsch said

    the graphs and there extrapolations are “no brainers” and probably not deserving of much discussion.

    I thought it was Romm’s brain-less decision to highlight them that’s being discussed.

  26. HaroldW said

    Neven et al.,
    The primary complaint is that the curve-fits extend beyond the period of data. Despite what caveats the author might profess, the only value in extrapolating those curves beyond the existing data, is to provide an implication that they are predictors of the future.

    If the curve fits stopped at 2010/2011 (whatever the latest data point is), I don’t think anyone could object to the graphic per se. [Naturally, one could still object to Romm's text.] But by extending the lines, the graph’s author is attempting, none too subtly, to suggest that an ice-free Arctic is imminent, even in the winter. If there was no intent to do so, the curves would logically stop when the data do. Demurrals are disingenuous.

  27. Carrick said

    Neven:

    You really don’t feel that developments in the Arctic are alarming

    Tell us what is alarming and for whom.

    Also Joe used the words “death spiral”, with your figure as the context. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t referring to a box of inaptly named cereal. You’re dissembling and nobody is being fooled.

  28. Not to distract from your discussion about extrapolations to the future,

    I would appreciate help extrapolating back to the roots of Climategate that point to the great social engineering experiments of the 1960s:

    Did social engineers – following the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis – use Eisenhower’s warning (17 Jan 1961) on the danger of a “scientific-technological elite” to design the “scientific-technological elite” that tried to:

    a.) Control the population of China (1965-1968)

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cultural_revolution.htm

    b.) Define H-fusion as Earth’s heat source (1967-1968)
    O. Gingerich, C. De Jager, “The Bilderberg solar model”

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968SoPh….3….5G

    c.) Identify CO2 as a dangerous air pollutant?
    US DoE contract with Phil Jones DE-AC02-79EV10098

    Climategate produced the questions; I do not know the answers.

    I know the rest mass of every nucleus with two or more neutrons is increased by neutron repulsion – the greatest known source of nuclear energy [1].

    I also do not know why the US Department of Energy (DoE) has not confirmed or denied that observational fact [1], but instead sent public funds to Phil Jones to misidentify CO2 as a dangerous air pollutant?

    1. “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2001):

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1n87370x6685079/

    Oiver K. Manuel
    omatumr2@gmail.com

  29. Carrick said

    Lucia:

    I thought it was Romm’s brain-less decision to highlight them that’s being discussed.

    I’m sure Lucia misspoke. After all, Neven assures us:

    Lucia, I wouldn’t be too eager to take on Romm if I were you. You can think of him (and his bets) whatever you like, but his assessment of the current situation in the Arctic is very sharp and accurate.

    This is in response to an article by Romm entitled Arctic Death Spiral: Sea Ice Passes De Facto Tipping Point Thanks to Deniers, Media Blow The Story, Again.

    I was disappointed that Joe didn’t mention the fossil fuel consortium in that title, he missed a golden chance.

    He does here: Eric Cantor Rails Against the EPA in Defense of His Biggest Oil and Gas Campaign Donors

    He’s almost hit on what is the main real issue though with this blog post One Billion Cars Now on World’s Roads, Driven by Exploding Demand from China. It’s about the developing countries, stupid. The ones who are using US and European hard work and billions invested in new technologies to fuel their rapid economic and CO2 emissions growth. Social justice demands we dismantle our economies and watch them leverage on the fruits of our labor for their success. Or something like that.

    Take home message, here, we all think lots of crazy thoughts, reality checking is recognizing which ones are crazy and developing the wisdom to not utter them.

  30. Joshua said

    Imagine if I did similar things here.

    This is classic.

    Nowhere, in your entire post, do you mention any of the points that Neven brings up. You somehow neglected to mention the caption? You somehow neglected to actually research where the graph comes from?

    And then, you worry about whether people that you constantly denigrate might be unwittingly tricked at a blog you never go to because you don’t want a lobotomy?

    I thought that “conservatives” were supposed to value personal responsibility.

    Guess not, eh?

  31. Jeff Id said

    “Nowhere, in your entire post, do you mention any of the points that Neven brings up.”

    They are not valid points.

  32. Joshua said

    They are not valid points.

    Right – they’re not valid because they address what you should have done, and failed to do. Got it.

    Not to defend Romm’s post – you’re right. It was misleading. But you failed to do due diligence in your post

    First, you should have included the points that Neven raised in your post.

    Then, to compound your negligence, you could simply have acknowledged that when Neven pointed it out, and gone on to discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of the rest of his perspective. That would have been the responsible thing to do.

    I’m shocked, shocked I say, that you failed to do what would have been responsible.

    Shocked!

  33. Jeff Id said

    Joshua,

    You are wrong, deliberately so I imagine, but birds of a feather.

  34. Joshua said

    You are wrong,

    I am wrong that if you had done due diligence, you would have included in your post a mention of Romm’s caption/disclaimer? You, yourself, said that Romm’s text disclaims what is in the caption, and you neglect to mention it in your post about the graph?

    You write a post on a topic, with an incomplete description of the topic you’re discussing, and you consider that to be sufficiently thorough?

    And then when your negligence is pointed out to you, you fail to acknowledge your lack of thoroughness and correct for the problem (and then go on to address the rest of Neven’s points, which are certainly arguable)? And you believe that is acting responsibly?

    Just admit you screwed up, Jeff. It would be the responsible thing to do. But instead, you pronounce, from on high, that I am “wrong.” Interesting to note that you don’t even proffer an explanation of how I’m wrong. Just simply that I am “wrong.”

    Keep it up with that “conservative” notion of “personal responsibility,” Jeff. It puts your political ideology in the fullest of perspective.

    Classic.

  35. Kenneth Fritsch said

    “I thought it was Romm’s brain-less decision to highlight them that’s being discussed.”

    I have no particular interest in what Romm’s opinions are or his methods of advocacy, but those graphs do draw some initial attention which after a little thought fades when the extrapolation (to where?) and the lack of any physical rationale for a long term extrapolation are considered.

  36. Jeff Id said

    Joshua,

    A more complete explanation would be that you are wrong because the alleged disclaimers are non-sequitors. This is not about accuracy of modeling, it is about false depiction of a projected curve and a deliberate attempt to scare people. While the less mathematically inclined, like yourself, may find Romm’s ramblings on model quality mildly convincing, those of us who are not pre-lobotomized know it is pure bovine scatology.

    Thus — you are still wrong.

  37. Joshua said

    ….but birds of a feather.

    Also, classic.

    Let’s be clear, here. I am making no assertion that some % of conservatives, indeed, uphold high standards of personal responsibility. I have no reason to believe that number is any higher or lower than you’d find with libz.

    I choose not to generalize about people and denigrate them on the basis of their political ideology. I also choose not to do so on the basis of how they view the science of climate change. I think that there are entirely responsible and reasonable people on both sides of the issue.

    And I think that there are people who habitually fail to display a sense of personal responsibility on both sides of the issue.

    If you get my drift.

  38. Joshua said

    Sorry – That should read

    “…some % of “conservatives” don’t, indeed, uphold high standards….. “

  39. Joshua said

    A more complete explanation would be that you are wrong because the alleged disclaimers are non-sequitors.

    A caption under a graph is a “non-sequitur?”

    Interesting.

  40. Jeff Id said

    “Interesting.” – I agree, and thus the post.

  41. Joshua said

    Ok, Jeff. The difference in our perspectives is clear.

  42. Joshua said

    Ah – just noticed this:

    A more complete explanation would be that you are wrong because the alleged disclaimers are non-sequitors.

    Geez.

    I wonder who “alleged” that they were disclaimers. Hmmmm. Let me see… Oh, here it is:

    Joe has posted a bogus extrapolation with the title death spiral and the disclaimers in the text.

    What kind of an idiot would allege that they are disclaimers?

    Probably the same kind of person who would say that a blog caption is a “non-sequitur,” would be my guess.

  43. Joshua you state to Jeff: “”Nowhere, in your entire post, do you mention any of the points that Neven brings up. You somehow neglected to mention the caption? You somehow neglected to actually research where the graph comes from?””

    First let’s examine Neven’s points, and since Joshua is such a stickler for due diligence, include him. Let’s go to the caption: Blah Blah Blah, points that are weaseling the nature of the Title and the results of the math, then this “”policies which are promoted by denier disinformation and sustained by media stenography.”” So how do we fight denier disinformation? We provide our own disinformation and do our own media stenography. So the first of Neven’s, and by proxy Joshua, is to NOT do due diligence and state what the caption is about and how it relates to the argument, whether Jeff’s or Joe’s.

    Then in the same post, Neven’s and by proxy Joshua’s, the tour de force. “”This is a nice piece on December temperatures in the Arctic, but it hasn’t got much to do with the Romm piece you link to.”” I guess all that other information, here let me show due diligence since Nevin is not EXACTLY clear which nice piece he is talking about, whether Jeff’s, or the other author Joe quoted from.

    Well I guess due diligence does not include reading by Neven and his proxy Joshua. Jeff’s post had the following outline:
    1.The scarish plot (Death Spiral) with caveats and hints to what he will argue, and of course tongue in cheek blaming Lucia.
    2. His argument: He goes into the math as why this is not a good way to present forecasting which he said he was going to do.
    3. Supports his argument: Shows why showing such an extrapolation is contrary to what is known about the Arctic and melting.
    4. Concludes: Makes a bet and further fun at Joe.

    Of course Neven, and by proxy Joshua, MIGHT have a point if the caption did not plainly state what Joe was so mad about. He was mad about what he himself was doing. But I guess having to read his own words so often, he has suffered even more IQ drop than Jeff did. But then that explains Neven and Joshua as well. Joshua agrees with Neven, like this Neven statement “”Again, Romm himself says the graph is oversimplifying things, and if you go and find out who made the graph and what he says about it himself, you’ll see he never presented it as a done deal. The graph first showed up here, and this is what the maker said about it.”” But somehow they miss what Joe said about it, you know that moral part of misleading and just recording what is stated.

    In FACT, lest I be accused of a lack of due diligence, let me point out that Joe’s title also has this claim of deniers and the media. You know the parts that Jeff actually took to task.

    And rather than be accussed of a lack of due diligence and suffer from incorrectness, let me point out that Joshua is wrong and Jeff is correct. For what Jeff argued, the points he made were correct and the points that Neven and Joshua made were non-sequitors. It is easy to show:

    1. The title: Arctic Death Spiral: Sea Ice Passes De Facto Tipping Point Thanks to Deniers, Media Blow The Story, Again
    2. The conclusion from the caption of the graph:But reversal of the overall death spiral is highly implausible absent an even more implausible reversal of current climate policies — policies which are promoted by denier disinformation and sustained by media stenography

    Just to show I appreciate humor, this quote from Joshua on another thread: “”What I find interesting, also, is just how many people at this website are interested in science yet continuously confuse fact and opinion.”” Joshua I am so glad you did not let the facts of what Jeff argued keep you from expressing an incorrect contrary opinion. I needed a good laugh today.

  44. lucia said

    Joshua:
    I’m astonished that Neven even suggested that Jeff should relate any more about what the maker of the graph has to say than Jeff related.

    When Neven posted the graph, his entire discussion is shown in the following screen shot:

    Jeff called these “exponential”– that’s what Neven calls them.

    So Neven say much about what the maker of the graph said.

    Looking further back in Neven’s post, I can find a link to Wipneus comment, where the “discussion” is:

    I have upgraded my PIOMAS graphs.

    Daily Arctic Ice Volume:

    Monthly Ice Volumes with exponential trends:

    To the latter I have included the June and July trends based as they where on data up to 2010 (dotted lines). Both months show an more rapid decline with the new 2011 datapoint.

    Posted by: Wipneus | August 03, 2011 at 20:20
    Neven

    Thanks, Wipneus. Post is up.

    Posted by: Neven | August 03, 2011 at 20:55

    We learn the reason Neven didn’t tell us much about what Wipneus said. It’s because Wipneus says almost nothing about the graphs.

    Maybe if you, Joshua had done due diligence you would learn that Jeff did tell us Wipneus said. Those are exponential graphs.

    Oh. And maybe you would have noticed that Joe Romm described them as quadratic. Gosh. I wonder how Jeff managed to get it right when Joe got it wrong. Oh. Let me think.

    Maybe Jeff read Neven’s post and included those points he judged relevant to his own discussion. That is: He did the “research” you seem to assume he didn’t do– and you have jumped to that conclusion based on Neven’s weird comment.

  45. lucia said

    Drat! I hoped I could include an image:

  46. kuhnkat said

    Don’t worry Jeff,

    no matter how many brain cells you lose there will always be us mental midgets to lift you on our shoulders!! 8>)

  47. Bruce said

    Joshua whines to his Mommy a lot when things don’t go his way. But at the end of the day, he is a troll and confesses on other blogs that his goal is to disrupt discussions.

  48. Brian Hall said

    Romm’s IQ is entirely tied up with concocting smarter ways to be stupid.

    BTW, an ice free Arctic would be great! Excellent for shipping, the PBs would morph back into land predators and do fine (like all the other times the ice melted), and then ,…

    the exposed water would radiate so much energy into space over the winter that it would shortly ice up again. Dang!

  49. timetochooseagain said

    21-I mean, really, here’s something for Neven to project into the future:

    Same story but less dramatic for Wheat, BTW. Probably roughly the case for all crops. Yep, I’d be scared we won’t have enough food too. Oh no wait, I wouldn’t because I’m aware of reality…

  50. kim said

    Borlaugo Energizo!

  51. kim said

    ============

  52. kim said

    Gad it’s tough getting the hang of these curses.
    ===========

  53. kim said

    Pshaw, enter the ‘genetically modified’ version:

    Borlaugo Potento!
    ==========

  54. Joshua said

    Lucia –

    I don’t think that Jeff has an obligation to find out what the maker of the graph has to say.

    I think that if Jeff is going to write a post about Romm’s post, and there’s a freakin’ caption under the graph that explains the graph, and Jeff talks about how the graph is misleading but fails to mention that the caption offers a disclaimer, then he hasn’t done his due diligence in writing his blog post.

    I’m not defending the graph – it is misleading, despite the caption. It’s a legitimate point.

    Jeff failed to do due diligence because he failed to identify the disclaimer. He exacerbates the problem by not simply acknowledging his mistake. And then to make it even worse, he trots out a lame justification like saying that a graph’s caption is a “non-sequitur.” And then he piles it on by saying that the disclaimer is an “alleged” disclaimer when he was the first person to describe it as such.

    Hey, all I’m asking for here is a little demonstration of personal responsibility.

    Oh – and Bruce’s claim is wrong. If he can provide a quote that matches what he claimed I said, I’ll call him my daddy.

  55. kim said

    Baby Ice prays for Joshua.
    =========

  56. page488 said

    Hi All.

    Neven and Joshua – I would really like to know how old are the two of you.

    Both of you seem to miss Jeff’s point.

    Neither of you seem to understand that Jeff has pointed out in his post that the whole thrust of Romm’s post is to get the graph before the public, with or without the little disclaimer (Romm has been around long enough to be aware that disclaimers usually get lost in the transference of the graph to the sympathetic major media).

    I took a lot of math years ago so, even though I’m not a statistician, I find fault with Romm’s graph for the simple reason that to make any kind of extrapolation, one has to be absolutely certain of the causes that create the data driven curve in the first place. Otherwise, the extrapolation is meaningless. Since Romm’s extrapolations are based on data accumulated over the past 30 years only, the extrapolations have no real meaning in the world or science or elsewhere.

    One aside:

    Ice or open ocean over the arctic ocean in winter has little to contribute to GW. In winter, so little sunlight reaches that area that it really does not matter whether or not there is ice there. The main concern, according to Dr. James Hansen, is whether or not there is ice in summer. His theory is that the “dark, melted arctic ocean” will absorb – and not reflect as ice would – heat in the summer and create a “tipping point,” because of sunlight absortion, whereby everything in the world would then melt because this so-called “tipping point” – a point of no return – had been reached.

    He’s never proven any of that. And, as a matter of fact, warming of the arctic seems to have happened before – long before humans were putting CO2 into the air in abundant quantities.

    I’m not sure if the Midieval Warm Period officially does or does not exist in the scientific community. However, the settlement of Greenland by Scandinivians coincides with the beginning of that supposedly warm time. (Who’d a thunk it?).

    There is no scientific data about the arctic ocean from that time. However, the middens left by the Scandinavian settlers indicate that after they settled in Greenland, they first grew crops and livestock, then fed only on livestock, then, presumably after the livestock were unsustainable due to the unavailabilty of feed, they went fishing – sometime after that, they pretty much just left altogether.

    It’s an indication – though not scientifically proven to the satisfaction of the AGW crowd – that some sort of a warm period did occur. I wonder what the arctic ocean was like at that time?

    At any rate, Neven and Joshua, that’s what I have to say.

    Page

  57. curious said

    Joshua – this is the caption beneath the chart at CP:

    “Arctic sea ice volume by month in cubic kilometers. The bottom (black) line is September volume. The plot makes projections with simple quadratic trend lines (details here), which likely oversimplify matters as we approach zero volume (especially for non-summer months). But reversal of the overall death spiral is highly implausible absent an even more implausible reversal of current climate policies — policies which are promoted by denier disinformation and sustained by media stenography.”

    Please can you highlight the bits which are supportable by evidence and give references? (Hey, all I’m asking for here is a little demonstration of personal responsibility!)

  58. curious said

    56 Joshua – on second thoughts don’t worry.

    If you really care about your point on “personal responsibility”, check out some of the technical debate threads here, where the interest is in open, correct and supportable science and techniques. Then compare to the rest of Romm’s post/site.

  59. omnologos said

    As I said (“Maurizio Morabito”, comment number 8 ), there is no way to understand what’s going on at Romm’s without a reference to “hide the decline”. So I am not sure if Joshua is playing the idiot or the naive.

    Jeff’s point (a “green Christmas”? zero ice in November and December?) remains as strong as ever. It is actually likely overconfirmed by Romm’s alleged disclaimer. Why “alleged”? Because a true disclaimer disclaims, and Romm’s doesn’t really.

    Read it again…”likely oversimplify matters as we approach zero volume“: it is clear that Romm misunderstood (wittingly or not) statistics, maths, and the physics of water, and kept ramming the same flawed idea from the graph into the caption (“as we approach ZERO VOLUME“).

    Either he forgot to mention “summertime” as in “zero summertime volume” (not such an unlikely possibility), or really we have a “climate expert” ((c) Wikipedia) such as Romm stating that he expects the Arctic approaching “ZERO VOLUME” year-round by 2020.

    This all reminds me of people trying to defend Ehrlich’s prediction about England disappearing by the year 2000, by stating that it wasn’t really a prediction. Yeah, right…

    Can you yell “I am likely oversimplifying matters, but the chance of a fire is growing stronger” in a crowded theater?

  60. Joshua said

    It’s interesting that you all are defending Jeff’s position here, by detailing what Romm wrote in the caption to the graph, and discussing its veracity

    I guess y’all don’t consider the caption a “non-sequitur,”now do you?

    In other words, you’re doing exactly what I said that Jeff should have done.

    And Page, apparently you missed this:

    I’m not defending the graph – it is misleading, despite the caption. It’s a legitimate point,

  61. Jeff Id said

    Again Joshua’s keen intellect and razor sharp mind penetrate to the core of the issue.

    It is amazing that people would go through such mental gymnastics to justify Romm’s deceitful post. I suppose it helps maintain their sense of self or something. I don’t mention Romm’s twisted, moot and incorrect caption under the pictorial lie so therefore I’m not doing my due diligence.

    I did link the article to the text which I fully warned would suck peoples brains. It seems like Joshua needed to read the warning closer before he clicked on Romm’s link which he now considers a ‘legitimate’ point.

    What point is legitimate? The death spiral, the ice will be gone before 2020, the exponential curves, if we acted now we could stop the ‘death spiral’ — every one of those points is known to be false by the science so why am I obligated to repeat an advocates propaganda?

  62. Joshua said

    Again Joshua’s keen intellect and razor sharp mind penetrate to the core of the issue.

    More of your “personal responsibility” on display, I see? It just oozes out of you, Jeff.

  63. Jeff Id said

    In contrast to what you may have been taught in school, I’m not personally responsible for you Joshua. You need to find your own way.

  64. Joshua said

    Apparently my point wasn’t clear, Jeff. Allow me to elaborate.

    I don’t believe that denigrating someone’s “intellect” is a demonstration of responsibility. Thus, I was using sarcasm to highlight your quote and show that, at least in my view, your argument displayed a poor sense of responsibility. Now Jeff, I have every reason to believe that in matters of true import – say how you treat your family, you are an entirely responsible individual My point here is that you allow your political/tribal perspective to corrupt the reasoning that you use when you are discussing political issues, and more particularly issues that relate to climate science. My point has been to highlight the evidence of that corrupted reasoning methodology, and to show that you allow your tribal motivations to provoke you to act in contradiction to what I assume is your underlying character of someone who accepts personal responsibility for their own actions.

    Now let’s move on to your next comment, shall we?

    In contrast to what you may have been taught in school, I’m not personally responsible for you Joshua.

    In point of fact, Jeff, you have no idea what I was or was not taught in school. So the first problem there is that you’re drawing conclusions with no supporting evidence.

    The second problem is that you used your fantasies about what I have or have not been taught in school to support your mistaken interpretation of my comment to you about a sense of personal responsibility. Now maybe it was my fault that you interpreted my comment in a way that was different than I intended. Perhaps I should have been more clear: In no way, do I think that you are responsible for me; but I will point out that it is quite likely that your tribalistic perspective, one that apparently leads you to make incorrect assumptions about what I learned in school, that introduced an element of “motivated reasoning” that led you to misinterpret my remark.

    At any rate, let me recapitulate. I don’t think that you are responsible for me, Jeff. (And I’ll add, again, I was never taught anything resembling that perspective in school).

    I think, however, that you are responsible for your own actions. And incidentally, Jeff – while I never learned that in school, that was a basic principle that was instilled in me by my parents when I was of elementary school age.

    I guess I just roll that way.

    Anyway, have a nice day. I’m going to be out of the pocket for a bit. I’ll check back later to see if you’ve had a change of heart regarding accepting responsibility for your own actions.

  65. Not sure what this fixation about personal responsibility is about. I say, we should all be personally responsible to clarify our thoughts, and to reply making good use of what has been replied to us.

    Joshua, you’re failing on both counts. I have no idea why you still think it worthwhile to point out that Jeff didn’t include a piece of text that was not necessary for Jeff’s post, was linked to anyway and would have reinforced Jeff’s point had he put it here in big bold letters.

  66. Jeff Id said

    “I don’t believe that denigrating someone’s “intellect” is a demonstration of responsibility. ”

    My comment you quoted was sarcastic in return and quite clearly stated that there were complex gymnastics behind acceptance of such a silly point of view. My belief is you are simply an advocate, in which case you are presenting a known dishonest argument for the sake of ‘whatever’. So I have taken my responsibility to heart and pointed out your sophistry. If you really believe what you are writing then you are right, I was denigrating your intellect — by accident.

    There are all types on the internet, many stop here to critique for entertainment value only, not because they agree with their own argument. Some do it because they understand nothing about the world except what they read in and regurgitate. You attempt to rationalize Joe Romm’s work with some fairly sophisticated (yet moot) side points so I assume that these complex gymnastics would raise some sort of red flag in your mind. If not, then yes we have to go back to intellect. Which I am again, not responsible for.

    You are guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal results. Mileage may vary.

  67. lucia said

    Joshua,

    In point of fact, Jeff, you have no idea what I was or was not taught in school.

    I suspect you either were not taught the the definition of “may” or the lesson didn’t stick. Jeff didn’t claim to know what you were taught in school and, btw, neither have I.

    Also: I’ve read your comments, and while for some mysterious reason, you think Jeff not mentioning the caption is somehow related to lack of due diligence or tribalism, I think you are– to use the word Jeff used– wrong. As far as I can tell: You have an opinion about what sort of article Jeff should have written, and he did not write that article. Jeff wrote a post on how deceptive the figure was. It was. While it may be your opinion that the existence of the caption was important in this context, my opinion is the opposite.

    The caption is utterly unimportant in this context and someone discussing the message conveyed by Romm is entitled to use his discretion and not discuss it.

    Moreover, in a blog format, people can bring up the existence of the caption. This has happened. If you can process what people other than you are writing, you will discover that many people think the existence of the caption in now way salvages Romm’s distortion of the truth. Many thin fact of it’s existence is utterly irrelevant to Jeff’s point and they think it’s well within Jeff’s editorial judgement to omit that information.

    If you want to explain why and how you think the existence of the caption changes the claim and argument in Jeff’s main post, go ahead. But simply whining that a detail that makes absolutely no difference to Jeff’s claim or argument was omitted is dunder-headed. Pretending that Jeff’s ommitting the irrelevant detail is tribal or lack of due diligence is even more dunder-headed.

  68. Jeff Id said

    65, Exactly, the text he apparently wanted included was linked to , supports my point and has errors.

  69. Layman Lurker said

    Joshua is a hoot. They use threads like this as case studies in “Troll School”. Another ‘citation’ notch in Joshua’s belt.

  70. Carrick said

    Lucia:

    Moreover, in a blog format, people can bring up the existence of the caption

    On blogs with open comments, where Neven and Joshua are given free run to make complete fools of themselves, and have smashingly done so, this can happen.

    Can you imagine pointing an actual error in one of Tamino’s rants, and how he’d respond. /yourebanned

  71. Anonymous said

    LL I think you miss a bit. The proper classification is a “care troll.” ;) This was one of the methods outlined in the “How we should answer deniers because we are Losing” series. The effort is to use a deferred argument to paint the deniers as toxic to rational discussion. The method is to subvert the factual argument with an outreach to percieved noble position such that the factual person is somehow remiss in correctness, politeness, or some other attribute that people respond positively to, such that they will respond negatively to the deniers.

    Of course at this rate, we will all need to go to Morano for score cards so we can keep the evolution and epistemology correct.

  72. lucia said

    Carrick–
    Neven seems to run pretty open comments.

  73. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Give Neven credit here as he came, he made his non points or points, depending on how you view what he has to say, and left. On the other hand, Joshua comes blowing his horn on peripheral stuff and then gets into side issues on the peripheral stuff and then leaves for sleep or whatever then and comes back again. Joshua, the walls are still standing.

    I think Joshua’s horn blowing comes as an instinct from knowing he has some major disagreements with certain blogs’ POVs. I doubt that replies to him, no matter how well intentioned, are going to change that tendency, so why not handle him and others like him by stating something to the effect:

    Thank you for your observation(s) on how I handled or presented my comments. Now that you presented your views, on which we may or may not agree, do you have anything of a substantive nature to say on the subject on which I commented – other than how I commented? Bloggers learned to ignore TCO and after a while he would go away without a major discussion ensuing about essentially nothing.

  74. Joshua said

    Lucia –

    If you can process what people other than you are writing, you will discover that many people think the existence of the caption in now way salvages Romm’s distortion of the truth.

    I have already posted the follwing twice, but perhaps a third time will help to clarify:

    I’m not defending the graph – it is misleading, despite the caption. It’s a legitimate point.

    You said that you’ve read what I’ve written, so I assume that you read that the other two times I posted it. As such, I must say I’m a bit surprised that (as least as far as I can tell), you think that I think that the caption somehow “salvages” the “distortion of the truth.”

    Further,

    You have an opinion about what sort of article Jeff should have written, and he did not write that article.

    Actually, I have had no intent to voice an opinion on what kind of article Jeff should have written. As a matter of kind, I think that he has a good point about the deceptive nature of Romm’s post and of the graph itself. I fully support analyzing to whatever degree people on both sides of the climate debate promote distorted or misleading analysis.

    So, I’ll just repeat my point, in the hope that repeating it once again might help to keep it from getting further misinterpreted (although that hasn’t worked yet – what’s that they say about the definition of insanity?):

    To comprehensively treat Romm’s post, and the graph itself, Jeff should have included the graph caption – a caption that Jeff himself describe as a “dislaim[er].” He could easily have gone on to discuss the implications, either way, of that disclaimer. But to write an entire post on a graph, and to not include a “disclaimer” in the caption under that graph as a part of his discussion, IMO, is quite incomplete.

    To not acknowledge that incompleteness when it was pointed out to him, I judge to display a lack of “personal responsibility.” To then claim that a “disclaimer” in a caption under a graph that he ran a post on, is a “non-sequitur,” seem rather laughable to me.

    Now I’ll move on for now, much to the benefit of Jeff and his readers – but I will just add a few further points.

    I fail to see how what happens at Realclimate or anywhere else is a valid explanation for whether or not Jeff is sufficiently comprehensive in his posts, or whether his failure to acknowledge a lack of comprehensiveness is a display of a lack of responsibility, or whether it is valid to say that a caption under a graph is a “non sequitur” with respect to a post analyzing said graph.

    I find it interesting that apparently you, and Jeff, and some of his readers, would spend your time offering corrections to someone who is so obviously mistaken as you apparently think that I am. I can only assume that it is because you all are very magnanimous – and are willing to take your time to help out someone who is:

    a care troll, whose intent is to attempt to defer arguments, has made a complete fool of himself, is a “hoot” who is using this thread as a case in “troll school,” who may have learned to expect other people to be responsible for him in school, who is “whining,” who is doing something that is “dunder-headed,” who is “failing” on multiple counts, and who is either a sophist or doesn’t believe what he says he believes (in which case denigrating my intellect was appropriate.”

    As such, I thank you for your magnanimity.

    For future reference, I think that in his last paragraph, Kenneth (#73) offers a more effective approach to people who you characterize in such a fashion. At least that’s how I generally treat people that I would characterize in the manner that y’all have characterized me.

    But hey, I guess that’s just how I roll.

  75. Joshua said

    Ok, one more post on this thread – hopefully I’ll catch you all on another thread at this amusing site.

    Kenneth:

    Joshua, the walls are still standing.

    Nice turn of phrase, Kenneth. Apparently you thought that by pointing out what I felt to be a lack of comprehensiveness, and display of a failure to take personal responsibility, I believed that the “walls” would come crumbling down. In fact, that isn’t the case at all.

    I fully expected to get treated as I was treated – to be characterized as:

    a care troll, whose intent is to attempt to defer arguments, has made a complete fool of himself, is a “hoot” who is using this thread as a case in “troll school,” who may have learned to expect other people to be responsible for him in school, who is “whining,” who is doing something that is “dunder-headed,” who is “failing” on multiple counts, and who is either a sophist or doesn’t believe what he says he believes (in which case denigrating my intellect was appropriate.”

    I have come to expect exactly such treatment in certain domains in the blogosphere. I tend to assume that such displays of rancor might (a slim chance, I suppose) help some folks on the “skeptical unconvinced” side of the debate (as distinguished from “deniers),” that ill-tempered rancor and defending a lack of comprehensiveness is equally well-distributed on both sides of the climate debate (the other side being the “skeptical convinced/believers). But even if that is unlikely, posting comments that express my viewpoint at blogs like this one also help me to see where my ideas may or may not be mistaken, and to help me control for the extent to which my own reasoning is unduly influenced by my political motivations (or confirmation bias).

    For example, I saw that I was mistaken in my earliest post, (partially due to Lucia’s post) in suggesting that Jeff should have responded positively to Neven’s point that Jeff “neglected to research where the graph came from.” I was wrong about that, and my statement was, no doubt, a result of my “motivated reasoning.” It is useful for me to see where my reasoning derives from my political motivations, as well as to explore what I see as the political motivations of other blog commenters.

    Anyway, this time I’m really out from this thread.

    Unless, of course, I’m not.

  76. Carrick said

    Lucia:

    Neven seems to run pretty open comments.

    I wouldn’t doubt it, but I don’t follow his blog. Tried it, it wasn’t my thing.

  77. tertius said

    This is a textbook example of thread hijacking. A classic one, two hit with Neven making an appearance to set up the diversion and then Joshua following through. Joshua then hijacks the thread to the point where he has the bulk of the posts; he must be laughing all the way back to troll school. Jeff’s valid original point, has been sidetracked, even derailed, because Jeff is in a no-win situation: if he bans the troll he loses, if he engages with the troll he also loses. On the horns of a dilemma Jeff (and others) engage…

    Now , what what the pertinent issue raised by Jeff’s post?

    And back at troll HQ the word to Joshua is “Well done, thou good and faithful servant!”

  78. Layman Lurker said

    #75 Joshua

    Good stuff Josh. A couple of more points. Consider also that the graph caption IS non sequitur as a disclaimer. IOW, the disclaimer does not follow from the caption. And if the disclaimer does not follow, then it is irrelevant wrt Jeff’s post.

    If you change your style of comment you will find commenters at tAV will more likely engage you respectfully. Study some threads with Nick Stokes commenting and you will see what I mean.

  79. Jeff Id said

    #77, I’ve never successfully predicted the winner of a political debate either. Did I really lose this? Hell, I look back see some points based on reality and a bunch of noise in the thread. There was literally zero counter argument to what I wrote so ‘lose’ is a surprise. Perhaps my liberal arts education is lacking.

  80. ColinD said

    And back to those extrapolations, as Lucia said they are accelerating. I would like to know what happens to the Arctic after it is ice free. Does it start to boil?

  81. Anonymous said

    ColinD:

    Does it start to boil?

    Naw, cold fusion.

  82. lucia said

    I wouldn’t doubt it, but I don’t follow his blog. Tried it, it wasn’t my thing.
    Right now, I find it useful to read the things people there think are predictive of the imminent “flash melting” and see if those are useful as regressors for anything to do with ice melting.

    A few people there are very useful to talk to. It’s like many blogs. But some stuff is funny. Based on the tone of some posts, you would have thought some sort of record breaking melt happened a few days ago– and that a few thought they’d wake up tomorrow and find all the ice melted. To his and their credit, Neven and a few other people pointed out that the ice is not literally going to melt over night.

    Crandles and I seem to be predicting about the same average amount of melt. My uncertainty intervals are larger.

  83. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Joshua,

    I think you may be mis-reading the skeptical community (at least the technical part of that community). You said:

    I have come to expect exactly such treatment in certain domains in the blogosphere. I tend to assume that such displays of rancor might (a slim chance, I suppose) help some folks on the “skeptical unconvinced” side of the debate (as distinguished from “deniers),” that ill-tempered rancor and defending a lack of comprehensiveness is equally well-distributed on both sides of the climate debate (the other side being the “skeptical convinced/believers). But even if that is unlikely, posting comments that express my viewpoint at blogs like this one also help me to see where my ideas may or may not be mistaken, and to help me control for the extent to which my own reasoning is unduly influenced by my political motivations (or confirmation bias).

    I think the issue is that skeptical folks (me in particular) think the main-stream position (as pronounced vigorously at RealClimate and other similar sites) is overwhelmingly influenced by political ideology. Honestly, it is the strangest thing I have ever seen in science. In any other field of science other than climate, the overwhelming influence of ideology/politics so evident in climate science publications would never make it past peer review. Yet in climate science, the infusion of politics (and the endless cants of how we MUST reduce CO2 emissions) is completely normal. Heck, lots of papers make a pointed effort to add alarm of some kind… even where the actual results of the paper say exactly the opposite. Like I said, it is very strange.

    Reasonable (skeptical) people view that political infusion with a high level of added skepticism. The response of the technical skeptics to the endless politics is a combination of intellectual revulsion and (perhaps) over-compensation via uniform doubt of all pronouncements of climate science. As an (old!) scientist with lots of experience in other fields, I can say that I personally do not trust people with such strong personal/political views to not (on purpose or not!) twist/tilt the data and interpretations to magnify the consequences of rising CO2.

    What climate science needs to do is simple: 100% avoid the political, and focus on the science… no political cometary is ever needed, wanted, nor prudent. Will that ever happen? I doubt it. It would help a lot for climate science to actively recruit grad students who are not already up in arms about mankind’s future doom… non-“green” grad students. The political homogeneity of the field is a huge problem

  84. Joshua said

    Steve –

    I understand your perspective. Although I think it is over-stated, I don’t think that it lacks any validity either.

    I think that tribalism intrinsic to the debate, and so it is important for everyone to be as open as possible about potentially “motivated-reasoning” that might influence their own processes.

    Being a realist, I am open to arguments that politics influence the science at places like RealClimate or Romm’s site. The example of the graph that is the subject of this post is a good case study. But what I consider theoretically implausible, as well as just simply in contrast with my direct observations – is the notion that some “skeptics” have that phenomena like motivated reasoning and confirmation bias affect one side of the debate more than the other.

    Now Jeff puts his political ideology out there for everyone to see, and for that he deserves credit. But I don’t think that he does a good job of controlling for how his politics bias his own engagement in the debate about climate change. OK, that could just be a matter of opinion. But, IMO, the perspective that he seems to argue – that there is some vast tendency of libz to allow ideology to distort their reasoning, in opposition to conz, fails to comport with everything I’ve experience in my lifetime as well as any serious study that examines how people reason in the face of conflict and controversy.

    Jeff’s failure to control for how his ideology influences his reasoning is more obvious to me in the political realm than the scientific realm, because I’m far more familiar with that phenomenon in that arena. I can’t speak as much to how his scientific reasoning might be distorted because I don’t have the technical background, but there are three “tells” that are quite apparent, IMO. The first is that he displays facile reasoning when drawing conclusions in the political realm. The second is that he clearly fails to diligently distinguish the political from his approach to the science. The third is that his behaviors betray a lack of understanding that motivated reasoning and confirmation bias are intrinsic to how humans process information, particularly in the face of conflict and controversy – and thus, by definition, are not likely to be more characteristic of one side or the other, in balance. The only hope someone has of controlling for those influences in their own reasoning is if they acknowledge that making categorical distinctions, along political or other superficial attributes, with respect to how people reason, is specious.

    IMO – if you’re concerned about political influences then you need to be just as worried about Jeff’s site and WUWT as you are with any other site. It doesn’t really matter whether they are as overtly political as this site or WUWT or Romm’s site, or potentially but less explicitly political as sites like RC.

    So, I’ll disagree with you that no political commentary is needed in that political commentary is not really the controlling variable here. If that were the case, then Jeff’s site and WUWT and Romm’s site should be completely disregarded. Of course, a lack of explicit political commentary sufficient, because a lack of explicitness does not equate to a lack of politicization. What I think needs to happen is that people need to hold themselves accountable for facile reasoning, and need to do the best they can to control for their own motivated reasoning, and need to be particularly suspicious of their own tendencies towards motivated reasoning, and need to welcome the opportunity to test for motivated reasoning against those who have opposing motivations.

    Which brings us back to the reason I started commenting on this post.

  85. Joshua said

    LL-

    Consider also that the graph caption IS non sequitur as a disclaimer. IOW, the disclaimer does not follow from the caption. And if the disclaimer does not follow, then it is irrelevant wrt Jeff’s post.

    OK – I stand corrected. Your point is valid. The content of the caption could be a non-sequitur with the content of the graph. I am not qualified to assess the veracity of that claim of non-sequitur on the specifics here because of my lack of technical background, but I don’t out of hand reject the veracity of the arguments offered. As I look back, that is what Jeff said – that the disclaimers were a non-sequitur (as opposed to my inaccurate rephrase that the caption was a non-sequitur). So, I was wrong. I believe I was wrong once before, although I might be mistaken about that.

    OK –

    But still, he did an entire post on the graph and he didn’t mention the caption of the graph, or what it said. He didn’t mention that the caption indicated limitations as to the implications of the graph. I fail to see how one could defend doing an entire post about the limitations of the implications of a graph, critical of how the graph was used, without mentioning a caption that discusses the limitations of the implications of the graph. Doesn’t fly, IMO. Jeff didn’t only focus his post on the technical content of the graph, but also on Romm’s motivations and intent to deceive. In that, a disclaimer in the caption is relevant to an assesement of Romm’s intent to deceive. I can understand how Jeff’s post might happen, but can’t understand defending it. I don’t see how the argument can be made that the caption is irrelevant to Jeff’s post.

    Further, when it was pointed out to him that he didn’t mention the caption, and the limitations it described therein, he didn’t just say, “Good point, let me amend the post – so that I can deconstruct why the limitations discussed in the caption of the graph are inadequate, and a non-sequitur w.r.t. the implications of the content of the graph.”

    So I got snagged on a failure to make the distinction between Jeff saying that the disclaimers were non-sequitur and the caption being a non-sequitur. For that, I offer a humble apology.

    Well, maybe not entirely humble.

  86. Joshua said

    sorry if the bold continues. I’ll try to turn it off now.

  87. Jeff Id said

    The differences, I hope, between this site and Romm’s is first that I actually attempt to insure politics doesn’t influence my science opinions. Whether I’m successful or not requires one of sufficient scientific knowledge to spot the errors. Disaggregation is critical. I post my code and numbers, and as many here will tell you, I’m one of the most critiqued writers here. In fact, I am probably the technical blogger who was forced to admit error most, so either I’m more error prone, don’t know what I’m talking about, am seeking reality through the noise, more honest with my intent or perhaps some combination of the previous list.

    Romm is political first and uses distortions of science to support it — my opinion. I express politics but work hard to discuss science separately. Some are chased away by my intrinsically correct politics, some don’t agree but read past it. What should I do. :D

  88. steve fitzpatrick said

    Joshua,

    Thank you for your thoughtful comments (#84). I agree that there is a strong tendency for ideology to trump reason, and even sometimes to trump reasoned doubt. That is evident in the poor technical quality of the debate on the magnitude and importance of GHG driven warming, as well as in the (sometimes overly skeptical) response to those issues. I do not suggest that there is not nuttiness on both sides of this issue… you need only to peruse a few blogs on either side of the subject to see that is true.

    Still, I think that you draw a bit of an false equivalency: It is in fact climate scientists (along with some rather extreme ‘green’ and left wing organizations) who are pushing most strongly for drastic and immediate reductions in CO2 emissions. In contrast, skeptics are not trying to convince anyone to fundamentally change how they live; the burden of overwhelming proof lies with those who are insisting upon major changes.

    The extremity of the political policy actions pushed by many climate scientist (ranging from a hugely expensive reduction in fossil fuel use to forced reductions in average human fertility) demands that they (the climate scientists) clearly, overwhelmingly, and without political influence, make their case. The key is that the case they make must be independent of political considerations. Whatever changes they suggest has to result in a clear net benefit to PEOPLE, not to ‘Gaia’ or some other bizarre view of ‘mother Earth’ as an entity in need of specific protections. Whatever changes are proposed, they must directly benefit humanity, not wolves, sea lions, polar bears, etc. This is where I see that climate science fails completely

    Climate scientists and their strongest supporters on the left are horribly convoluting climate science with politically motivated “required changes”. The truth is lots of thoughtful and perfectly rational people do not give a hoot if polar bears die because of a lack of sea ice in the Arctic. Likewise, lots of thoughtful people do not give a hoot that England is today free of the wolf packs which were a terror to the inhabitants 1500 years ago; lots of people think that re-introducing wolves in Montana is just as nutty as any proposal to reintroduce them in central England would be. Climate science needs (indeed, must!) get past the child-like arguments about “environmental morality”, etc. Until this happens, no real political progress is possible

  89. Carrick said

    Jeff ID:

    In fact, I am probably the technical blogger who was forced to admit error most, so either I’m more error prone, don’t know what I’m talking about, am seeking reality through the noise, more honest with my intent or perhaps some combination of the previous list

    I think it’s because your posts provide enough relevant information that you can be fully fact-checked, your technical posts tend to be cutting edge (not like the fluff on many other blogs), and you say what you mean instead of using waffle words that allow a backdoor out in case you were wrong.

    Good show to Joshua for admitting error when he realized it. I read Jeff’s political rants, er posts, but I do so with a light heart and an open mind. Nothing wrong with a good vent, you don’t have to agree with every word to find reading an opinion interesting.

  90. Brian Hall said

    steve fitzpatrick

    Re: steve fitzpatrick (Aug 25 19:48),
    lots of people think that re-introducing wolves in Montana is just as nutty as any proposal to reintroduce them in central England would be. Climate science needs (indeed, must!) get past the child-like arguments about “environmental morality”, etc. Until this happens, no real political progress is possible

    Excellent post, but I must take issue with the “wolves in Montana” comparison. Not only is Montana not remotely like England, the wolves are different. Either genetically or through social learning and transmission, N.A. wolves have kept the hell away from humans. You’ll look long and hard for instances of attacks, and they’ll be in unique circumstances. In Europe, they seem to have a different attitude!

    Didja know wolves restored fish populations in Yellowstone? They cut the browser population, and kept the rest skittish enough that they didn’t browse the borders of streams bare, resulting in return of shade and debris on which the fish depended. It was quite a surprise “unintended consequence”.

  91. Anonymous said

    Joshua, I think if you want to make headway on the political part, you should formulate differently. As Jeff will tell you, I am a liberal. He will also tell you that I will post political differences from the liberal paradigm that causes him to think and consider. Which I consider the most complimentary of statements. “Winning” an argument is more times than not actually losing both the argument in the real world and losing that person’s respect , ear or both. But to make another person consider a different view or outlook may be legitimate, even if the person never changes their opinion, the consideration is a win for both sides.

  92. [...] If Jeff looks at this figure, I will hear the shock wave created when his head explodes because the graph shows that negative amounts of ice are inside the lower 95% confidence interval [...]

  93. steve fitzpatrick said

    Brian Hall #90,

    I was not aware that wolves in Yellowstone are good for fish stocks.

    Whether on not wolves remain protected in the future will depend a great deal on the wolves. If they kill and eat a few people (especially a few children) then you can be sure public opinion will change and the wolves will be toast.

    With regard to controlling browsing populations: I do not doubt that lots of hunters would be more than willing to step in and do this if wolves are not around. It is the combination of not having top predators present and prohibiting hunting that causes the kind of population problems so evident in the past in Yellowstone.

  94. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: steve fitzpatrick (Aug 26 13:13),

    Doe’s are still over protected compared to bucks. The bias against taking a doe even when it’s allowed has also become ingrained in the hunting population. It was necessary to re-establish the deer population, but it has gone too far. Apparently it’s ok to allow wolves to kill deer or for them to starve in the winter because of overpopulation. But it’s somehow wrong for humans to hunt and eat them.

  95. page488 said

    RE: #94

    You’re right, DeWitt. In Alabama, if hunters don’t cull the deer population, they starve in winter. Also, if over-populated, the deer destroy all the low hanging flora, morphing said flora into – well – just dead.

    I just came across this quote and thought it was great:

    “In America, the young are always ready to give those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience.” >/b> Oscar Wilde, 1887

    I thought of some of the Greenies I ‘ve seen here when I saw it!

    Have a nice weekend, all!

    Page

  96. steve fitzpatrick said

    DeWitt,

    But it’s somehow wrong for humans to hunt and eat them.

    Well, maybe, but my cousin (who is a serious hunter) served me some grilled doe tenderloin this summer, and it was every bit as tasty as beef tenderloin. I didn’t feel guilty at all.

  97. page488 said

    RE: #96

    I think you misunderstood DeWitt!

  98. steve fitzpatrick said

    #97,

    I don’t think so. I believe DeWitt would have enjoyed the doe tenderloin just as much as I did.

  99. timetochooseagain said

    Heh. I had heard venison was pretty gamey. I’ll probably stick with the domesticated animals. Mostly because I live pretty far from any hunting grounds. Plenty of supermarkets though, so no shortage of more “conventional” meats.

  100. Jeff Id said

    Bambi veal is fantastic. Venison can be rough for a lot of people but the common mistake is to cook it grey. You need to cook it so it looks incredibly rare. A difficult task if you intend to win a lady’s heart but if you want a good hunk of protein, the god of meat pretty well worked this out years ago.

    So many foods, so little time.

    You know what is awesome — raw oyster.

    wow.

  101. page488 said

    RE: #98 I stand corrected!

    RE:#99 You just have to cook it right. Jeff just gave some pointers!

    RE: #100 We used to collect oysters in Florida when I was a kid and eat them, sitting on the end of the pier, with a bottle of ketchup and lemon. Nothing better when they’re that fresh!

  102. timetochooseagain said

    I don’t much care for shell fish. But thanks for the tips, next time I have some venison I’ll make sure it’s cooked right.

  103. steve fitzpatrick said

    timetochooseagain,

    My experience is bucks can be a more gamey than does. According to my cousin the (the deer hunter) it also depends on what they eat. In his area, they mostly forage in late summer and autumn in corn fields (something the farmers are not wild about)… so they have a diet similar to cattle. Anyway, what I have had has been usually pretty tasty… and it has been cooked rare rather than well done.

  104. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: steve fitzpatrick (Aug 27 10:15),

    The tougher cuts of venison make great chili.

  105. boballab said

    The tougher cuts also make great sausage or ground up ala hamburger. You haven’t lived yet until you have had Spaghetti with Venison Meatballs.

  106. [...] to extrapolate– as I am doing here– candidate models picked this way are likely to make Jeff Id’s head explode. However, if I were betting, I’d rather at least look at what extrapolation suggest rather [...]

  107. Joshua said

    In fact, I am probably the technical blogger who was forced to admit error most,…

    That’s interesting, Jeff.

    So let me ask you a question: To the extent that you might be able to assign a “directionality” to your errors, would you say that your errors have been equally balanced in the direction of over- and under-evaluating the effect of CO2 on climate? Maybe you can’t reduce the errors you described in such an elementary way, but if you could, and there is a significant imbalance there, maybe that’s something you should look at?

  108. Jeff Id said

    Joshua,

    In my opinion, they have mostly been in the direction of wrong. Once, they were due to a huge correlation bias caused by the fact that I didn’t calculate anomaly before running a huge matrix through the grinder. Once, the sea ice estimate showed a zero global trend but the NSIDC didn’t post any note regarding the fact that the satellite data time series had a step in it – they changed their website over it. Once I posted on probability vs causation and got the greater than sign in the wrong direction. Once I embarrassingly screwed up on temperature basics. I have two or three global temp series with obvious problems that I couldn’t figure out — and said so. On and on, there are dozens of examples totally visible in the history of this blog. Fortunately, I have a lot of smart friends who don’t mind telling me when I screwed up.

    As far as balancing my errors vs the effects of CO2 on the climate, I may be the only blogger who has posted at WUWT regarding the fact that CO2 warming is in fact indisputable. The dispute lies with the amount of warming and problems caused by it — only.

    You have pre-determined the nature of this blog without sufficient reading, perhaps you are the one who should study and tell me the bias before you tell me I have one.

    You might be surprised to know that I have also posted on a temperature anomaly combination method developed by Roman M (statpad) which guarantees a higher trend than any of the standards. Climate science in general should look at his methods as they are inherently more accurate.

    But yup, people who don’t read still call me a denier.

  109. lucia said

    Joshua–
    I read your questions to Jeff, and I wanted to ask you this:

    Are you aware that when posted, Jeff temperature reconstruction showed the most warming of any blog temperature reconstruction? And that it exceeds the warming in GISS/HadCrut etc?
    (It may still be the one that shows the most warming.)

  110. Jeff Id said

    Lucia,

    Shhhh….Don’t let anyone know. The Heartland institute will revoke my skeptic card and my BP cheques won’t clear!!

  111. steve fitzpatrick said

    Jeff,

    If they revoke your card, I will print you up a new one….. Anyone can issue skeptic cards. Besides, you are about as skeptical they come, with card or without.

  112. Yep, JeffID is such a skeptic. Remember how all of us pounded on Jeff for that temperature anomaly? How we pounced on him for stating that the question was how much warming did it cause? ;)

    Well, I am on record that Dr. Keith Briffa was trying to do science, and that he lost the consenus argument. The worse that Jeff and the denizens did was post emails that caused some questioning of my stance. Still, my opinion, is even if he is somewhat, somehow, not the most honest, he is the cleverer of the lot.

    I guess the best way to end this is that Jeff, myself, and many others here think Salby is wrong. However, I am working on something, and if the Salby work confirms it, I’ll post it with Jeff’s permission. I don’t think he is going to show that the average increases are not manmade, but it will show something perhaps more important, a better and more accurate CO2 balance. But we have to wait for the paper. Those of us who think Salby is wrong, could be wrong.

  113. Jeff Id said

    Thanks Steve, Just because they take your drivers license doesn’t mean you forget how to drive.

  114. lucrari de licenta…

    [...]Dreaming of a Green Christmas « the Air Vent[...]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers

%d bloggers like this: