« PIOMAS November 2012 | Main | Arctic methane: Why the sea ice matters »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Winston Smith

@FrankD: A bit late to this party, but I can sketch you a quick history. It was a motion filed in 2010 by the VVD party (conservative/liberal), after discussion of the InterAcademy Council report of the IPCC. It requested that the IAC's recommendations be implemented promptly, and, indeed, that climate sceptics be involved in future studies. It was accepted by a large majority in the House.

The minister responsible reported earlier this year on the progress made so far; the important points regarding involvement of sceptics were:

  1. A Dutch sceptic has been asked to write a commentary on the IPCC WG1 contribution to AR5;
  2. The most important argument against the inclusion of sceptics' scientific arguments in IPCC reports is that there is no peer reviewed literature available on them. KNMI, ECN and PBL are working to publish an article analysing these arguments;
  3. KNMI and PBL have been asked to organise an objective and in-depth discussion on the internet, where several experts will highlight arguments used by sceptics.

(1) refers to Marcel Crok, known from blogs climategate.nl and staatvanhetklimaat.nl and his book "The State of the Climate".
(2) refers to the survey conducted by Bart Verheggen et al.
(3) refers to Climate Dialogue.

The direct precedent to this motion, I guess, is a parliamentary hearing conducted earlier that year with scientists, journalists and sceptics, about the criticisms of the AR4. In other words, the usual strategy of limiting the arena to "the scientists" versus "the sceptics", making sure that the former are not represented in the same proportion as the latter, and that some politicians are there who have to grovel to their electorates.

wayne

At least from CD effort I am getting to know Ron Lindsay, offering solid opinions slowly, but surely:

"About the attribution of the decline to AGW vs natural. The fact is we don’t really know and all we can do is speculate. That is not really science. "

Proof positive of the influence of AGW with respect to greater Arctic sea ice melts is found by looking at the historical record. Which is not as Flimsy as contrarians like to make it. Almost forgotten was it not for their music, Bowhead Whalers patrolled the outskirts of the Arctic Ocean for centuries (with records since the 17th), their catches indirectly provided a layout or boundary of the ice, which never went as open as 2012. This is not speculation but history.

What is left is:

Solar... The lowest sun spot activity in 4 cycles.
Clouds... There are seasons which have intensified with more water vapour and ENSO variations, but these have not changed for centuries. Arguing clouds have a similar to 2012 extent impact fails it did not happen in history.
Sea temperature... The PDO is near all time coldest, but I dont give much credence to its meaning.
Aerosols and soot... Per recent Arctic observations and actual spectrophotometric measurements, recent Aerosols are at all time lowest levels, most clear sky sunrise and sunsets are bright white with a tinge of yellow, as opposed to 10 years ago backwards in time.

So the only thing left melting the ice further is AGW. A Natural fluctuation would look like the recent past spanning hundreds of years, which had variation without deep stable volume shrinking trends.

idunno

Apparently the "Great Arctic Cyclone" of 2012 was the largest in August during the satellite period.

Further, in a new low for climate science, it seems that it is now in the peer-reviewed literature as the "Great Arctic Cyclone", named as such, IIRC, by researcher N Acropolis. Surely this must be the final nail in the coffin for BFBBCAGW?

;)

idunno

Sorry, with all the fun I was having, I forgot the link:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL054259.shtml

Neven

Further, in a new low for climate science, it seems that it is now in the peer-reviewed literature as the "Great Arctic Cyclone", named as such, IIRC, by researcher N Acropolis.

R. Gates did it, Miss! (if memory serves me right).

Ah well, what's in a name? And there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

All I want to know is whether we're going to see more of those in melting seasons to come.

The comments to this entry are closed.