Climate Science Dialog

H

Haiku

Makes the ganglia twitch.
Some here may be interested in this...

ClimateDialogue.org offers a platform for discussions between invited climate scientists on important climate topics that have been subject to scientific and public debate. The goal of the platform is to explore the full range of views currently held by scientists by inviting experts with different views on the topic of discussion. We encourage the invited scientists to formulate their own personal scientific views; they are not asked to act as representatives for any particular group in the climate debate.

Obviously, there are many excellent blogs that facilitate discussions between climate experts, but as the climate debate is highly polarized and politicized, blog discussions between experts with opposing views are rare.

Background


The discovery, early 2010, of a number of errors in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report on climate impacts (Working Group II), led to a review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC by the InterAcademy Council (IAC). The IAC-report triggered a debate in the Dutch Parliament about the reliability of climate science in general. Based on the IAC recommendation that ‘the full range of views’ should be covered in the IPCC reports, Parliament asked the Dutch government ‘to also involve climate skeptics in future studies on climate change’.

In response, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment announced a number of projects that are aimed to increase this involvement. ClimateDialogue.org is one of these projects.


We are starting ClimateDialogue with a discussion on the causes of the decline of Arctic Sea Ice, and the question to what extent this decline can be explained by global warming. Also, the projected timing of the first year that the Arctic will be ice free will be discussed. With respect to the latter, in its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, IPCC anticipated that (near) ice free conditions might occur by the end of this century. Since then, several studies have indicated this could be between 2030-2050, or even earlier.

We invited three experts to take part in the discussion: Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; Walt Meier, research scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado; and Ron Lindsay, Senior Principal Physicist at the Polar Science Center of the University of Washington in Seattle.

Future topics that will be discussed include: climate sensitivity, sea level rise, urban heat island-effects, the value of comprehensive climate models, ocean heat storage, and the warming trend over the past few decades.

Our format


Each discussion will be kicked off by a short introduction written by the editorial staff, followed by a guest blog by two or more invited scientists. The scientists will start the discussion by responding to each other’s arguments. It is not the goal of ClimateDialogue to reach a consensus, but to stimulate the discussion and to make clear what the discussants agree or disagree on and why. 
To round off the discussion on a particular topic, the ClimateDialogue editor will write a summary, describing the areas of agreement and disagreement between the discussants. The participants will be asked to approve this final article, the discussion between the experts on that topic will then be closed and the editorial board will open a new discussion on a different topic.

The public (including other climate scientists) are also free to comment, but for practical reasons these comments will be shown separately.

The project organization consists of an editorial staff of three people and an advisory board of seven people, all of whom are based in the Netherlands. The editorial staff is concerned with the day-to-day operation of researching topics, finding participants for the discussion and moderating the discussions between the experts. The main task of the advisory board is to guard the neutrality of the platform and to advise the editorial staff about its activities

The project leader is Rob van Dorland of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), a senior scientist and climate advisor in the Climate Services section and is often active at the interface between science and society. The second member is Bart Strengers. He is a climate policy analyst and modeler in the IMAGE-project at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) and has been involved in the discussion with climate skeptics for many years. The third member is Marcel Crok, an investigative science writer, who published a critical book (in Dutch) about the climate debate.
http://www.realclimate.org/
Click to expand...

Why not read what the experts are saying?
 
From Real Climate...rings true doesn't it?

Trying to shoot the messenger

Filed under: Climate Science statistics — gavin @ 7 November 2012

Does this sound familiar? A quantitative prediction is inconvenient for some heavily invested folks. Legitimate questions about methodology morph quickly into accusations that the researchers have put their thumb on the scale and that they are simply making their awkward predictions to feather their own nest. Others loudly proclaim that the methodology could never work and imply that anyone who knows anything knows that -it’s simply common sense! Audit sites spring up to re-process the raw data and produce predictions more to the liking of their audience. People who have actually championed the methods being used, and so really should know better, indulge in some obvious wish-casting (i.e. forecasting what you would like to be true, despite the absence of any evidence to support it).

Contrarian attacks on climate science, right?

Actually no. This was assorted conservative punditry attacking Nate Silver (of the 538 blog) because his (Bayesian) projections for Tuesday’s election didn’t accord with what they wanted to hear. The leap from asking questions to cherry-picking, accusations of malfeasance and greed, audits, denial, and wish-casting was quite rapid, but it followed a very familiar pattern. People who value their personal attachments above objective knowledge seem to spend an inordinate amount of time finding reasons to dismiss the messenger when they don’t like the message.

Fortunately for Nate, all it took was one day, and reality came crashing down on his critics entire imaginary world.



For climate science, it will probably take a little longer…
Click to expand...
 
Bijou said:
Oil companies pay 'scientists' to promote what's good for the oil companies. Wise up, dumbass.
Click to expand...

once again bijou proves she can't debate anything of substance.

keep bobbling your head for your liberal lords. you bobble head well.

in tom's threads, which contain scientific, peer reviewed, research...all you do is ad hom and say - needle dick - over and over

you don't provide a scintilla of an argument to counter any of the scientific points made. you're a shill. nothing more.
 
There is a whole industry built by the oil companies and put in place to muddy the waters so people like you hear what you want to hear. There are zero climate scientists who deny global warming...zero.

For instance on arctic ice...I've seen things posted here denying the melt..

Those who think we are tilted too far toward an anthropogenic influence seem to be criticizing that we all accept such an influence and that there should be a contributor who does not. However, this is a scientific discussion. In science not all views are equally valid. A valid view must be backed by evidence. A view that anthropogenic GHGs do not influence climate is simply not supported by the evidence. I’m not going to go into detail, but there are myriad lines of evidence: the physical/chemical properties of GHGs, the paleoclimate record, the modern observational record, and climate models.

As an example, I’ll note Douglas Keenan’s comment, 2012-11-14 21:08, that a significant trend in Arctic sea ice has not been demonstrated. This is wrong. Statistical significance tests have been conducted by numerous people (including myself) and trends are strongly significant at >99% confidence levels. Even breaking things into regions and months yields strongly significant trends in almost all regimes (the Bering Sea during winter months being the primary exception). These significance tests have not always accounted for autocorrelation, which does reduce significance, but auotcorrelation in the observational record is low (0.1 according to Stroeve et al., 2012 [my reference 8]) and thus has a minimal effect on the significance.

http://www.climatedialogue.org/melting-of-the-arctic-sea-ice/
Click to expand...

You want to argue it's all a librul plot of some kind...you don't want to read or learn anything. I've given two good links above that are full of facts so you can read. One of them is having a discussion...you can follow along, you can even comment. Have at it.
 
Haiku said:
There is a whole industry built by the oil companies and put in place to muddy the waters so people like you hear what you want to hear. There are zero climate scientists who deny global warming...zero.

For instance on arctic ice...I've seen things posted here denying the melt..



You want to argue it's all a librul plot of some kind...you don't want to read or learn anything. I've given two good links above that are full of facts so you can read. One of them is having a discussion...you can follow along, you can even comment. Have at it.
Click to expand...

What makes me laugh is you are obviously totally unaware that Judith Curry is one of the climate scientists who is a sceptic. :palm:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...sm-climate-change-colleague-huge-mistake.html
 
Bijou said:
Oil companies pay 'scientists' to promote what's good for the oil companies. Wise up, dumbass.
Click to expand...

can you provide some evidence to prove this asssertion? I've grown very tired of warmers propagating this bullshit meme. Either you find some evidence of some vast funding conspiracy or you are a fucking nutjob.
 
the warmers are such lightweights on the science. Seriously, I asked for one of them (on another site) to provide the formula by which the proportions of anthropogenic and natural climate forcings are determined. Crickets!
 
tinfoil said:
can you provide some evidence to prove this asssertion? I've grown very tired of warmers propagating this bullshit meme. Either you find some evidence of some vast funding conspiracy or you are a fucking nutjob.
Click to expand...

Get out from under that fucking rock, then. The only 'fatigue' you're experiencing is from staying huddled under that rock with your fat fingers stuffed in your ears. Here's just one, denial-boy:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...titute-unwittingly-accept-the-climate-threat/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4
 
tinfoil said:
can you provide some evidence to prove this asssertion? I've grown very tired of warmers propagating this bullshit meme. Either you find some evidence of some vast funding conspiracy or you are a fucking nutjob.
Click to expand...
35,000 scientists work for Exon alone, retard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top