Originally Posted by Justin '77

I know it's not an important question for some people, but could you maybe humor the rest of us, who like to know more than just the name of the person who promised that their numbers are "totally really, really good, seriously".

The article in Nature is Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years. $32 will get you full access to the paper. I confess, I don't have the academic credentials to second guess the editors and reviewers of a major journal, but go for it. If you are feeling cheap, the 'supplemental data' (.pdf) associated with the article might start you into it.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Yep. The more ice melts, the faster the ice melts. This is one of the tipping points I've been watching for for years. The next tipping point is the methane...

Originally Posted by Scientific American

You’ll probably hear this referred to as the first ice-free Arctic summer. But, in reality that first “ice-free Arctic” will most likely be a period of a few days or a week or two in mid-to-late September. August will still have an ice cap, if a small one. July will have a larger one than that. June larger still. And March, the month of the year when the Arctic ice cap is at its maximum, will still have seen plenty of ice.

Yet from that year on, the ice-free period will likely grow, expanding in duration to start earlier and end later year over year. Most likely, it’ll follow the same jagged, two-steps-forward one-step-back progression we see in climate in general. The first year after the first “ice-free Arctic” year, we may see some ice cap persist all the way through the summer again. For that matter, next year, 2013, it’s quite possible that we’ll see more ice than this year. Climate is bumpy that way. But, if recent history is any lesson, bit by bit, step by jagged step, the ice free period will lengthen, and the ice coverage in other months of the year will shrink.

This is particularly important because September is not a very sunny month in the Arctic. The sun never rises high above the horizon, and so its heating power is muted. Those dark waters are absorbing more of the solar energy that strikes them than ice would, but there’s simply less solar energy striking the arctic in September than there is for the spring and summer months leading up to it.

The sunniest time of year in the northern hemisphere is the summer solstice, in late June, and the weeks preceding and following it. For several weeks the sun’s rays are at their most intense and the Arctic receives 24/7 sunlight, giving it a double whammy of heating. In fact, in June, July, and the latter half of May, the Arctic receives more total solar energy per day than regions at the equator do at any time of year. The sun’s rays are never as powerful in the Arctic as they are at the equator, but the 24/7 availability of sun more than makes up for that. (If you doubt this, see NASA’s Earth Observatory page on the topic or use NASA’s monthly insolation-by-latitude calculator.)

Advice well taken.

http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/srmonlat.cgi

Basically the higher the number for the month, the greater potential there is for warming. Maximal warming in any latitude follows the sun, and north of about 20N the peak insolation (reception of incoming solar radiation) is invariably in June. In June it increases up to the North Pole, so just imagine how warm an ice-free Arctic Ocean could get in mid-summer. A seasonably-warm Arctic Ocean would cause the disappearance of the tundra biome along the arctic because the Arctic Ocean would be comparatively warm during the summer.

Winters would be impeded in the upper-middle (subarctic) latitudes, and cold waves that flow into the real middle latitudes would not be so strong. There would be huge climatic change. There is no indication of how climatic belts would shift in the Northern Hemisphere. Could the absence of cold snaps bring tropical conditions to Texas and Georgia?

Just an odd article from Realclimate, Embargos and Confidentiality. Scientific papers, including those on global warming, are often released a few days early to the popular press, to give reporters a bit of extra time to digest what they say. There is a new trend developing where the authors of the paper require the reporters to sign non-disclosure agreements. The reporters aren't allowed to show the papers to other scientists that could interpret the technical stuff and provide possible intelligent contrary points of view.

Realclimate is against this. They want reporter comments on scientific papers to be well informed.

Originally Posted by B Butler

The article in Nature is Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years. $32 will get you full access to the paper. I confess, I don't have the academic credentials to second guess the editors and reviewers of a major journal, but go for it. If you are feeling cheap, the 'supplemental data' (.pdf) associated with the article might start you into it.

You've made clear, repeatedly, your abject incompetence to judge for yourself matters scientific. Given that, I suppose show-of-hands is as good a way as any to make a call -- although I wonder what justifies the strength of convictions in calls founded on such a weak basis. You're not a kid, so it must be a Boomer thing

In any case, the link you gave comes right out and lists the proxies used. Pretty clever stuff, really: salt concentrations in ice cores; year-on-year melt in the same; oxygen isotope mix in the same; lakebed sediments; and tree rings. None are directly related to ice extent, naturally, but it doesn't take any great leap to think they might react to the same stuff. Although they'd also react to other stuff unrelated to ice extent. That's very briefly mentioned in the paper, although it's immediately hand-waved off.
In any case, proxies -- particularly loose ones like those -- come with error bars, and there's a conspicuous lack of those (though those, too, are mentioned briefly and then hand-waved off). Graphs of data with error-bars that don't show error-bars are pretty worthless from an understanding-things standpoint.

But whatever; it's an interesting read, nonetheless.

I think everyone holding themselves out as experts and trying to win the "I'm-smarter-than-you" contest here should post their credentials. How many of you are scientists, or have science degrees? Please enlighten us as to the source of your authority on these matters.

Well...

I suppose it's somewhat a relief to be able to point out that ridiculous Arguments-from-Authority are far from limited to the AGW-Faithful. It's not a surprise, naturally. Just... the balance is aesthetically pleasing.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I suppose it's somewhat a relief to be able to point out that ridiculous Arguments-from-Authority are far from limited to the AGW-Faithful. It's not a surprise, naturally. Just... the balance is aesthetically pleasing.

There are types of questions that are traditionally held to be outside of the purview of science. Religious, philosophical and moral questions might stand as examples. Global Warming, however, seems to be well within the realm of science. In which case, using information from peer reviewed professional journals would seem to be fair game? How else can one approach scientific problems? Is each individual required to take his own data, to do his own analysis?

I don't know that quoting professional papers or information derived from such papers ought to be dismissed as 'Argument from Authority'. It feels to me more like those attempting to exclude the scientific method from examination of a scientific question would be trying to disregard the facts.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Is each individual required to take his own data, to do his own analysis?

That would fit well with Justin's general philosophy.

Originally Posted by B Butler

There are types of questions that are traditionally held to be outside of the purview of science. Religious, philosophical and moral questions might stand as examples. Global Warming, however, seems to be well within the realm of science. In which case, using information from peer reviewed professional journals would seem to be fair game? How else can one approach scientific problems? Is each individual required to take his own data, to do his own analysis?

"Required"? By who?

Each individual is certainly capable of expending a greater or lesser degree of effort understanding a thing for himself. I would guess that a rational person's strength of conviction would correlate rather well with the amount of effort he had elected to put into understanding a thing. Some people, however, seem to feel that strong convictions are appropriate even when they come from abject, passive ignorance.

That's just not my thing.

---
-edit-
oh, and show-of-hands might arguably be 'science' in sociological matters, but it's really not very much at all in questions of physics.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That would fit well with Justin's general philosophy.

I think there's a formal word for it - the praxeological method.

I think that's Latin for "pull it out your arse"

It is amazing how far the deniers will take AGW denial, when the facts and consequences are so well-proven and obviously-visible, just so they don't have to pay more taxes or accept more regulations, or so that their philosophy and ideology, which opposes these government actions, is not violated.

Originally Posted by The Rani

More taxes and more regulations is another kind of philosophy and ideology, eh Eric?
They won't stop the oceans from rising, either.

Yes, specifically and certainly, more taxes and regulations of certain kinds WILL stop the oceans from rising; that's the whole point.

Originally Posted by The Rani

So you're gonna tax and regulate other countries, too?

Let's start with our own, which is by far the most responsible for this disaster; then we can work on convincing and influencing China. But really; most other countries (even China) are already doing more than we are. They don't have Republicans and red states and filibusters to deal with.

Once China fully decides to act, and they are on their way to doing it, they will be able to do it faster, because the government has more authority. I don't prefer the Chinese system, but it does have that advantage.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Let's start with our own, which is by far the most responsible for this disaster; then we can work on convincing and influencing China. But really; most other countries (even China) are already doing more than we are. They don't have Republicans and red states and filibusters to deal with.

Once China fully decides to act, and they are on their way to doing it, they will be able to do it faster, because the government has more authority. I don't prefer the Chinese system, but it does have that advantage.

Yes. They do not have to deal with Republicans and red states and filibusters. The world would be much better off if only we had a totalitarian dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, specifically and certainly, more taxes and regulations of certain kinds WILL stop the oceans from rising; that's the whole point.

So, Eric. What percentage of the worlds carbon footprint is due to Americans living in the industrial age, and what percentage comes from, say, trees and animals?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

So, Eric. What percentage of the worlds carbon footprint is due to Americans living in the industrial age, and what percentage comes from, say, trees and animals?

Perhaps I should leave Eric to tie himself in knots here, but -- hell, I can't.

The total carbon footprint is not the relevant measure. The CHANGE in the carbon footprint over the past century or so is what's important. Delta-C, not C.

So modified to ask the real question, one hundred percent is due to industrialization (not just in the U.S., of course -- gawd but you do love your straw men) and zero percent is due to plants and non-human animals, except for those animals that are domesticated by humans.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Yes. They do not have to deal with Republicans and red states and filibusters. The world would be much better off if only we had a totalitarian dictatorship.

Well no, but the world would most assuredly be better off without Republicans and red states. However, not being in favor of genocide and mass murder, there must be other ways in which to make the world better off as such. Perhaps demographic changes will do the trick. Perhaps a mass or gradual awakening to the truth will accomplish it. We can hope and pray; including for you, Mr. young conservative Wallace!

When facts are no longer available to resist the inevitable need for government action, then straw men must suffice for republicans and libertarians to trot out. But, straw too is more vulnerable to fire under the industrial global warming condition and the droughts it causes, just as is so much more of the world's land and vegetation we depend on.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You've made clear, repeatedly, your abject incompetence to judge for yourself matters scientific. Given that, I suppose show-of-hands is as good a way as any to make a call -- although I wonder what justifies the strength of convictions in calls founded on such a weak basis. You're not a kid, so it must be a Boomer thing

In any case, the link you gave comes right out and lists the proxies used. Pretty clever stuff, really: salt concentrations in ice cores; year-on-year melt in the same; oxygen isotope mix in the same; lakebed sediments; and tree rings. None are directly related to ice extent, naturally, but it doesn't take any great leap to think they might react to the same stuff.

Do you even comprehend how proxy data is initially calibrated and becomes proxy data in the first place? Because your comments here indicate that you don't.

Although they'd also react to other stuff unrelated to ice extent. That's very briefly mentioned in the paper, although it's immediately hand-waved off.
In any case, proxies -- particularly loose ones like those -- come with error bars, and there's a conspicuous lack of those (though those, too, are mentioned briefly and then hand-waved off). Graphs of data with error-bars that don't show error-bars are pretty worthless from an understanding-things standpoint.

But whatever; it's an interesting read, nonetheless.

Meaning it refuted your initial complaint but you wish us to believe it wasn't as strong as it really is. Do you really think reviewers for the journal Nature let authors "hand wave off" claims? Isn't it much more likely that what you call "hand waving" is the authors referencing other studies that have already refuted your complaint?

Does every paper have to rehash and provide detailed analysis of every single issue that is the slightest bit relevant to its topic?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

So, Eric. What percentage of the worlds carbon footprint is due to Americans living in the industrial age, and what percentage comes from, say, trees and animals?

To paraphrase a classic, "I don't think that term means what you think it means!"

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Besides, Ockham's Razor isn't a "Key principle of logical thought." It is a logical fallacy that would reject General Relativity for the simpler but less accurate Newtonian Physics. Same goes for atomic level chemistry: why mess with quantum mechanics when the plum-pudding model of the atom is so simple?

Not actually how Ockham's razor works. In order for a decision to require Ockham's razor both options must be equally good at explaining the facts. Your examples did not meet that requirement. Both Newtonian mechanics and the plum pudding model were dropped because they failed to explain certain facts. Ockham's razor is completely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Do you even comprehend how proxy data is initially calibrated and becomes proxy data in the first place?

Rather pretty well. I do a fair bit of contract work generating and analyzing Phase I and II environmental site assessments. I generate and use proxies kind of a lot. Granted, pyrene/anthracene ratios as a proxy for types of primary-pollution issuers is different from the proxies these guys are using -- but there's kind of a hell of a lot of real-world experimental test data at least blocking off large chunks of the overall range. The ice core/sea ice proxies are 'validated' by not much more than an ANOVA and checked by what appears to be a t-test. Those are valid statistical methods for assessing corollation, provided a qualitative analysis has reasonably assured that no other driving mechanisms have been left out of the analysis.

This is basic stuff; I'm pleased to be the one to help you understand a bit better.

Meaning it refuted your initial complaint but you wish us to believe it wasn't as strong as it really is.

Not at all. That would have involved this thingy you find from time to time in scientific writings, called a 'citation'. Granted, the stuff Bob posted wasn't the entire paper, and I'm sure there's a cite somewhere there that we just can't see.

Do you really think reviewers for the journal Nature let authors "hand wave off" claims?

If you had much experience with scientific journals, you'd know that this is a thing that indeed happens. Generally, it gets picked up in a response to the initial paper that one of the readers of the journal submits. Nobody's going to get everything right all the time -- that's why skepticism and criticism is perhaps the key virtue of science.

tl;dr: calm down, take a deep breath. It's alright.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

"Required"? By who?

Each individual is certainly capable of expending a greater or lesser degree of effort understanding a thing for himself. I would guess that a rational person's strength of conviction would correlate rather well with the amount of effort he had elected to put into understanding a thing. Some people, however, seem to feel that strong convictions are appropriate even when they come from abject, passive ignorance.

That's just not my thing.

---
-edit-
oh, and show-of-hands might arguably be 'science' in sociological matters, but it's really not very much at all in questions of physics.

I would kind of like some sort of consistency in the discussion. A while ago there was an assertion that all the AGW people have is models that show a hockey stick no matter what data you feed the models. This would be an interesting claim if it could be backed up. No references, though. I don't doubt the sincerity or the intensity of the belief, but claims like this made in a vacuum reflect values lock more than anything vaguely scientific.

With a scientific question, referencing reviewed scientific papers seems valid methodology. I know you don't like the results. The science conflicts with your political world view, therefore the science must be wrong. Thus, I seem to be hearing that science is 'argument from authority' and ought to be ignored, or that science is a 'show of hands' and ought to be ignored. This seems to only be true when the science conflicts with your politics. Otherwise, science is science, a useful tool for learning about the universe and solving problems.

Now, I do agree, keeping up with the field is a good idea. When the Himalayan glaciers thing recently surfaced yet again, I knew the issue. On the other hand spending a few minutes with Goggle can also be useful. When you disparaged the arctic ice proxies, I could only vaguely guess what proxies might have been used, but it didn't take long to find the Nature article. No, the main stream press and the various propaganda groups pushing one side of the issue or the other aren't going to include much data or details on methodology in their intended for public release articles. Still, before disparaging the data and methodology of professionals in their field, one might make some token effort to at least look at said data and methodology.

Yes, I'm too much into values lock. As such, I've looked hard at my own perspective. I'm science first, politics second, religion third. While I have great emotional attachment to Jefferson's self evident truths, there is a need for reality checks. In an era when money buys advertising which brings votes, is the Will of the People checked by the Rights of the Individual being implemented reasonably well? (Short answer... No.) Belief in an ideology, from my perspective, should not blind one to possible flaws in the ideology. Given my values, an ideology that requires one to disparage and disregard science is flawed. If I see an ideology that requires its followers to live in an alternate reality, I am not inclined to take the ideology seriously. Such an ideology would be more a danger than a boon.

So, no, muttering "argument from authority" and "show of hands" does not invalidate the scientific method. To me, these are not magic worlds that alter my bedrock. They are merely symptoms of values lock. I am apt to be as stubborn about this as another might be to his interpretation of the Bible.

As Newton said, "This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses."

Originally Posted by B Butler

I would kind of like some sort of consistency in the discussion. A while ago there was an assertion that all the AGW people have is models that show a hockey stick no matter what data you feed the models. This would be an interesting claim if it could be backed up. No references, though. I don't doubt the sincerity or the intensity of the belief, but claims like this made in a vacuum reflect values lock more than anything vaguely scientific.

Very true. I was displeased to see that claim made, too (since I'm pretty sure it isn't true). There's plenty of substance to support skepticism; no need to use garbage as if it were just as good.
But there's all sorts of people, and each of them is going to do what he will.

With a scientific question, referencing reviewed scientific papers seems valid methodology. I know you don't like the results. The science conflicts with your political world view, therefore the science must be wrong.

I see you making this leap time and again -- even in the face of pretty clear evidence to the contrary. I presume this is you exemplifying that 'values lock' hobgoblin which you seem to see under every bed. Science often is, and tends often to be good. Show-of-hands, on the other hand, is not -- nor is a legitimate substitute for -- science. Much as you want it to be otherwise so you can evade the responsibility for using your own critical thinking skills. Wishing doesn't make it so (sorry, Eric )

When you disparaged the arctic ice proxies, I could only vaguely guess what proxies might have been used, but it didn't take long to find the Nature article.

See, this is a perfect example. Presented a floating-point colorful picture, I posed a question about where it came from. Failing to simply take the bright lines (and their Meaning as Delivered) as Truth is something you interpret as 'disparaging' them. In fact, asking questions is step one in ... damn near everything useful, really. Disparaging is something that rational people do after they get answers (or, when they learn that no answers will be given). I haven't gotten to that yet, nor do I see any real need to. But that's not a good enough answer for the Faithful.

Oh well..

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Very true. I was displeased to see that claim made, too (since I'm pretty sure it isn't true). There's plenty of substance to support skepticism; no need to use garbage as if it were just as good.

But there's all sorts of people, and each of them is going to do what he will.

Too true. Would you object to my calling out people who make such unsubstantiated claims, asking for studies that show such to be true? Or would this be in your opinion "show of hands" or "argument from authority?"

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I see you making this leap time and again -- even in the face of pretty clear evidence to the contrary. I presume this is you exemplifying that 'values lock' hobgoblin which you seem to see under every bed. Science often is, and tends often to be good. Show-of-hands, on the other hand, is not -- nor is a legitimate substitute for -- science. Much as you want it to be otherwise so you can evade the responsibility for using your own critical thinking skills. Wishing doesn't make it so (sorry, Eric )

Oh, come on. Do you really want to claim there is no correlation between small government political world views (such as Libertarian and Republican) and rejection of the main line AGW science? All the usual names on this thread are pretty much hanging out with their usual mates. Would you care to run a statistical analysis?

Be real... if possible.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

See, this is a perfect example. Presented a floating-point colorful picture, I posed a question about where it came from. Failing to simply take the bright lines (and their Meaning as Delivered) as Truth is something you interpret as 'disparaging' them. In fact, asking questions is step one in ... damn near everything useful, really. Disparaging is something that rational people do after they get answers (or, when they learn that no answers will be given). I haven't gotten to that yet, nor do I see any real need to. But that's not a good enough answer for the Faithful.

Oh well..

For me, the precise details of where the ice was over the last several centuries isn't that critical. People have been looking for Northwest Passages and not finding them for quite a while, which is all I need to know about the fairly recent past. It's the big nose dive to the right of the curve, dominating the noise off to the left, that is significant. The break hasn't quite got the sharp corner of a hockey stick. I'm guessing that the more the ice melts the faster the ice melts effect will make the process more exponential than linear. I'm seeing a softer break at the start of the process, but the slope getting stronger and stronger. The core meaning of the curve is plain enough for those who can see.