Lies, damn lies etc.

[Digit]

Regrettably we have all become accustomed to politicians like TB 'spinning' the facts, (that's lying in Anglo Saxon!) but when scientists join in I really get angry!
When I was a child I understood that there was such a thing as academic integrity, regrettably that has disappeared it seems, and nowhere more so that in 'green' issues...

Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered • The Register

another example.

Roy.

[svenrufus]

Sorry, maybe I'm being a bit dim, but I'm not sure what your point is here.

The article was written by a someone who is has no known expertise in climate change, Steven Goddard, (it is not clear what he does, but it seems he may work in IT) based on his interpretation of an aparent contradiction between two different data sets, which cannot anyway be used for direct comparison. Why an IT expert should be commenting on Climate change in an IT publication is curious, and why we should pay much attention to it is something else to consider.

One of the authors of the data sets Goddard used, contacted the publishers of this article to make comments on the content, and on the methodology used in arriving at it's conclusions. From that rebuttal, Goddard came back to concede that his own assessment as presented in his article was wrong and that the extent of ice melt was as stated in the data that he had challenged. To quote "it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated". Basically, he had not taken into account a change of recording method used by one of the data sets that he referred to, leading to him getting things muddled.

So are you having a go at the bloke who got it wrong and admitted it, or the people that came up with the original data who proved to be right? Or are you having a go at the publication for running a flawed article outside of their area of expertise?

[Digit]

Just showing the pictures actually. Unless they've been doctored there is a significant difference between the two years which would seem to be difficult to explain as a trend of global 'warming' I think.

Roy.

[svenrufus]

Right, Ok, I didn't get that. Sorry.

It's fair enough to question that figure, but the important distinction to remember is the difference between climate and weather. Weather is what happens every day, or in the case of ice sheet, their extent is a reflection of what the weather has done to them over the last summer. Climate is a pattern of what the weather tyoically does over a number of years. While each years weather contributes to the pattern of climate, it does not negate it if it is not on the trend line - the trend is everything.

There has been a lot of talk lately about the last year or so not being as warm as previous years, and this has been used by many climate change deniers to claim that there is nothing to worry about. But it is not possible to draw that conclusion from a year or two's data. It is only when that pattern has been established for a longer period that we can say that climate, as distinct from weather, is going in the right direction.

There have been dips in the warming trend in the past, but it is the trend, not the fine detail we need to look at. The research that the article above is based on gives interesting data, but nothing to draw conclusions from at this stage, for either side of the argument.

As I said, recently there has been a slight cooling recorded, and the reason is not clear, but it is interesting/worrying to note that sea level rises continue, which is not what you would expect from a body of water that is cooling - you would expect it to contract. The fact that sea levels are still rising is therefore likely to be a result of melt water from glaciers etc. This additional water volume when heated up, assuming that the general warming trend re-establishes itself, will lead to much more significant sea level rises than we have seen lately.

We still have a lot to be worried about, notwithstanding that a larger Ice sheet last year was good news for the polar bears.

[Digit]

I would point out that Polar Bears survived the last time the ice melted though!
I do appreciate the distinction between weather and climate. What offends me is when people, on which ever side of any debate, start quoting dodgy data or their opinions as fact.
After the second IPCC meeting the UN published a list of those they claim signed the final report.
I googled a number of the names, this produced no result in a number of cases but two stick in my mind, the names now don't I'm afraid.
One was an Italian lady whose occupation was listed as an 'environmental attorney', anyone know what that is?
Another turned out to be the boss of a company supplying the catering.
Personally I would not want such dubious 'qualifications' listed as supporting me in any debate, it sounds like barrel scraping and diminishes the seriousness of the debate and debases the qualifications of others IMO.
In a similar vein the South Africans have claimed to have found the earliest evidence of 'modern human activity' at a coastal site.
Their reasoning for allocation the artefacts to Homo Sapiens is because the artefacts show advanced conceptual thinking
So in other words no other no other species could have done it. That may be so, but the reasoning, the logic, is rubbish!

Roy.