Comments 1 to 38:

1. Bern at 23:16 PM on 7 February, 2011
   Schmitt is a geologist. What is it about some geologists that they get climate so completely wrong, to the point of making statements that are flatly contradicted by recent measurements?
   0 0
2. dorlomin at 23:38 PM on 7 February, 2011
   Bern at 23:16 PM on 7 February, 2011 Schmitt is a geologist. What is it about some geologists that they get climate so completely wrong, to the point of making statements that are flatly contradicted by recent measurements? = = = = = = = = = = = = = Some of them do get quite foxed by CO2 levels in the early and mid Phanerozoic, they were notably higher. But then again that is more the solution to how we avoided freezing over with much lower solar energy.
   0 0
3. SNRatio at 00:19 AM on 8 February, 2011
   I wonder if it may have to do with failure to fully acknowledge the non-linearity of many effects. After all, 32 times as high CO2 as now is just five doublings, and it is not that much change in solar output needed to balance that. Feedbacks are mostly based on net forcing. As for this man, either he is making statements without having checked the underlying data, or he is consciously making an misleading presentation. I don't know what is worst. But I _really_ doubt he would say "temperatures have now returned to January levels" after a frosty night in April.
   0 0
4. Alden Griffith at 02:02 AM on 8 February, 2011
   To me, this has nothing to do with area of expertise, but simply represents appalling analytical skills that are unacceptable in any discipline. Imagine a student in their graduate-level comprehensive exam trying to make a claim based on two data points that completely misrepresents the clear longterm trend. Fail.
   0 0
5. Alden Griffith at 02:05 AM on 8 February, 2011
   whoops - I didn't mean that to be an ad hominem remark. Sorry, if it reads that way.
   0 0
   Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Don't worry, it's pretty clear that it's not an A-H remark.
6. Dan Moutal at 03:22 AM on 8 February, 2011
   The comedian Marcus Brigstocke has a good analogy to this situation: saying that this is like standing at a train station and watching a 6 foot tall man walk through the gate. Then ignoring every single other person that also walked through the gate half an hour later seeing a midget walk through the gate and conclude that OH MY GOD PEOPLE ARE SHIRNKING!!! Or in other words, cherries are delicious.
   0 0
7. Same Ordinary Fool at 03:23 AM on 8 February, 2011
   When you sit on top of a rocket, you must trust the science behind the engineering on which it was built. How would he have felt if the underlying science were a "skeptic science" that came from just 3% of the publishing scientists? And, in particular, that these scientists were the rump contingent, a predictable group in every scientific field, that resists the new research. And what would he have thought of the "heretic skeptics" campaigning for positions that the 3%'ers are unlikely to believe, and certainly couldn't profess in serious circles. And yet these "heretic skeptics" are the largest part of the movement. Did Harrison Schmitt ever think that he would become one? PS See geologist Richard Alley's video lecture, "The Biggest Control Knob, Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
   0 0
   Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Converted URL to clickable link.
8. paulgrace at 03:24 AM on 8 February, 2011
   I don't know about Schmitt these days, but many geologists work for or associate with other geologists that work for extractive industries, in the pursuit of fossil carbon to burn. I suspect this may expose them to significant pressure to view greenhouse gas issues from a particular slant.
   0 0
9. dana1981 at 03:43 AM on 8 February, 2011
   Joe Romm at Climate Progres just covered Articgate too. http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/07/harrison-schmitt-climate-science-denier-arctic-sea-ice/
   0 0
10. Mike Palin at 03:45 AM on 8 February, 2011
    Please note that Harrison Schmitt's more recent, and in this context more relevant, credentials are as a politician in the Republican Party. That trumps his earlier training as a geologist or astronaut.
    0 0
11. Steve L at 04:16 AM on 8 February, 2011
    John, I've never seen Fig 2 before. There are a couple of things I find interesting there: there are a lot of missing data at the end of 1987; the annual average is higher than the midpoint of the range (even prior to 2007). I'm ignorant about why either of these things happened.
    0 0
12. Daniel Bailey at 04:43 AM on 8 February, 2011
    The disingenuity of the myth is made even more plain by looking at Arctic Sea Ice Extent even further back in time: Science: Using all of the data to see the bigger picture. The Yooper
    0 0
13. Bob Lacatena at 05:41 AM on 8 February, 2011
    John Cook, The light blue oscillating "monthly ice extent" in Figure 2 is I think too light. I didn't even notice it when I first looked, and to me it's the most important part of the graph. It's the orchard, that makes it very clear from whence the cherries were picked. Interestingly, they're not even max extents, but obviously very arbitrarily chosen matches. Could you darken that color? May make it royal (dark) blue, and instead make the currently royal blue yearly average black).
    0 0
14. Bob Lacatena at 06:33 AM on 8 February, 2011
    This graph from Peter Gleick's site is also great for highlighting the cherry pick: Misrepresenting Climate Science: Cherry-Picking Data to Hide the Disappearance of Arctic Ice http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-02-07-Arcticgateimages1A.jpg
    0 0
15. Bob Lacatena at 07:40 AM on 8 February, 2011
    Here's figure 2, with the contrast slightly improved (and a bad case of jaggies to go with it):
    0 0
16. Marcus at 09:27 AM on 8 February, 2011
    What I notice from figure #2, now that I can see it clearly, is that 1989 had an unusually low *maximum* extent for the 1980's (by about 0.5 to 1 million sq. kilometers), which is probably why they've chosen that over-say-April 1988 vs April 2008. This is, again, no different from choosing 1998 as a baseline for recent climate change-because it was an unusually hot year for the 1990's. As I said above, the dishonesty of the Denialists is just beyond the pale, yet look how quickly they prosecute even very honest mistakes by the other side!
    0 0
17. villabolo at 10:08 AM on 8 February, 2011
    Alden Griffith @4: "Imagine a student in their graduate-level comprehensive exam trying to make a claim based on two data points that completely misrepresents the clear longterm trend." You can actually imagine a mere layman, who does not even pretend to have the ability to read charts, finding intuitively something very wrong with that picture. If we were to actually run into a layman using such a chart, it would be instructive to emphasize the visual emptiness of the chart. That should arouse suspicion in his mind.
    0 0
18. Michael T. at 12:19 PM on 8 February, 2011
    Here is the NSIDC graph of April Arctic Sea Ice Extent from 1979 to 2010 showing a clear longterm decline in extent even since 1989:
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed URL.
19. muoncounter at 14:18 PM on 8 February, 2011
    Here's the current NSIDC graph: Can anyone find a cherry to pick from this? The current year is more than 2 stddevs below the average and below 2006-2007, which was the worst year in the record.
    0 0
20. John Brookes at 15:06 PM on 8 February, 2011
    The claim about arctic sea ice seems to be totally disingenuous. Who would have thought that AGW skeptics would stoop to such levels?
    0 0
21. Philippe Chantreau at 19:43 PM on 8 February, 2011
    Actually muoncounter, the shaded area around the average line is 2 standard deviations, so the current year would be more like 4 standard deviations below average. It is so far from average that talking in terms of standard deviation becomes kinda meaningless. I am wondering how, or if our usual skeptic contributors can possibly explain the thought process and motivations behind statements that are so glaringly wrong. What was Schmitt thinking?
    0 0
22. les at 20:50 PM on 8 February, 2011
    #20 John, Seriously? You think this is a low level? google "Pole Shift Threatens To Cause Weather Chaos prison planet" I think you guys are being unkind, though. There is every evidence that these folk really want to engage with science - the driving force of the modern era. Obviously they're not up to it, find it all a bit hard and confusing and, therefor, scary...
    0 0
23. Riccardo at 21:17 PM on 8 February, 2011
    Philippe Chantreau #21 I strongly agree that talking in terms of standard deviation is meaningless, the null hyppthesis being that there's no trend. But we know that the trend is there and the null hypothesis should be that there's no change in the trend.
    0 0
24. BillyJoe at 21:49 PM on 8 February, 2011
    #22 les, Seriously? You think they want to engage with science? Google "Harrison Schmitt" to view his business, political and organisational connections. I think you are being a little naive. There is every evidence that this guy is pushing an agenda and he doesn't care what data he dregs. Obviously you are just not up to his level of [self censored]
    0 0
25. rhjames at 22:39 PM on 8 February, 2011
    I don't think anyone can seriously claim that Arctic ice has recovered. However, it hasn't continued to decrease since 2007 as predicted. We also have to consider Antarctic ice, which has been increasing for 30 years. We can't just be selective about the Arctic because it's convenient. We have to accept that, as Phil Jones said, there's been no significant warming for the past 15 years. Also total polar ice isn't decreasing. We have to be careful about the North West Passage being open - this isn't unusual - it's been open plenty of times in the past - before we had satellite measurement of polar ice. We need to be realistic about the claims we make.
    0 0
26. MarkR at 23:15 PM on 8 February, 2011
    #25: 'As predicted' is loaded, projected changes in Arctic ice include a full range with associated uncertainty. The possibility of further area collapse was mooted, but was far from a mainline prediction as far as I can tell. Here's a paper from '07 where they help explain it. 2007 was far below model projections and since then we've stayed below model projections. Phil Jones said no statistically significant warming at the 95% confidence level from 1995-2009. It is now (using '95-'10) statistically significant at that level. This is from the HadCRUT3 dataset which is only an atmosphere/surface measurement. If you look at ocean heat content, or latent heat invested in melting ice, or sea level (which integrates over those) then up to 2003 global warming was obvious in all of them. Since '03 we've seen significant rises in sea level and loss of ice, plus probably in abyssal warming, but perhaps not in 0-700m ocean heat content. Total polar ice is not decreasing? The data say that it is. Sure, Monckton and some other skeptics say otherwise, but I tend to run with the data. Antarctic sea ice is covered elsewhere on here. :)
    0 0
27. muoncounter at 00:42 AM on 9 February, 2011
    #25: "I don't think anyone can seriously claim ... " That is really a multi-part statement. The claims are made: See the quote at the top of this post. Greenland glaciers have been advancing since 2006, Artic [sic] sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage, and snowy, cold winters and cool summers have dominated northern North America and Europe The serious aspect is that these claims get repeated. People who don't bother to verify hear 'famous astronaut says' and their brains switch off. Then the amplification process begins: 'as everyone knows, the Artic has recovered'. That the claims are so easily shown to be false shows how impoverished the denier arguments are.
    0 0
28. Bernard J. at 02:13 AM on 9 February, 2011
    Muoncounter at #19. Ironically, I posted the same graph at Deltoid yesterday. It's important though to be very clear about distinguishing between 2006 and 2007, with respect to the winter maxima, and Stu N made this point for me when I myself skipped over it. I was more concerned about the overall trend compared to 2007, and where it is heading, but if we're not careful it's quite possible that we could be accused of the sort of cherry-picking that Peter Gleick indulged in. That's one mud-hole I don't want to be wallowing in!
    0 0
29. Bernard J. at 02:20 AM on 9 February, 2011
    For the record, I've just noticed that Stu N's graphic link will automatically update to the latest data, and eventually wander away from the current point. Today's graphic, as posted by Stu, is cemented here.
    0 0
30. Bernard J. at 02:23 AM on 9 February, 2011
    ...and Mouncounter's (and my) graphic as it stands today is here.
    0 0
31. J Bowers at 03:49 AM on 9 February, 2011
    Comment left at Heartland in comments to their page where John links to in his post. Let's see if it survives:

    "...In fact, National Snow and Ice Data Center records show conclusively that in April 2009, Arctic sea ice extent had indeed returned to and surpassed 1989 levels..." Sir, you owe your readership an apology for giving a misleading impression that Arctic sea ice is recovering, based on of data comparisons for a month in 1989 and 2009. The data inbetween, and since, clearly demonstrates that Arctic sea ice extent is consistently in a state of decline on climatological timescales (30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organisation. I trust that you will correct your error.

    0 0
32. muoncounter at 04:40 AM on 9 February, 2011
    #30: Thanks, I reset the link to yours. My guess is that this year is a statistical tie with 2006-07. Still massively below the average - and that's the point.
    0 0
33. les at 06:29 AM on 9 February, 2011
    #24 BillyJoe "Seriously?" ... ummm, no... Should be said, I'm English and consider that Irony is the highest form of wit. Don't worry, lots of 'denialists' don't understand irony either.
    0 0
34. BillyJoe at 07:12 AM on 9 February, 2011
    les, Fair enough. But difficult to pick sometimes if you don't know the poster. For example, my response could be read as irony also. ;)
    0 0
35. Philippe Chantreau at 11:17 AM on 9 February, 2011
    Rhjames' Arctic sea ice has decreased a lot more than Antarctic sea ice. Global sea ice is clearly in the decline. Picking 2007 to try to suggest that the ice decline has stopped is as misleading and wrong as suggesting that temperatures have been flat since 1998. Both claims are equally wrong, the data shows that very clearly. In fact, the decline in summer Arctic sea ice shows an accelerating decline up to 2010. If you can not understand that this does not necessarily mean that every year will be lower than the previous one, you have some serious catching up to do with the basics. The very significant decrease in Arctic sea ice in the Arctic summer opens up large areas of ocean to absorb sunlight. The Northwest passage has never been reported to open as much and as long as in recent years. All Northwest passages crossings in more distant history took several years. There has never been in recorded history so many days when both the NW and NE passages were open at the same time as there was in the past few summers. All this has been explored earlier on this site, proper research here or on Google will take you to all the sources and data you need.
    0 0
36. GFW at 13:36 PM on 9 February, 2011
    Rhjames is the very definition of a "concern troll" (google that if you're not familiar with the term). Note his hilarious use of "We" to open three paragraphs. Hence, I don't expect him to return, or to read the reasonable responses people have written if he does. Nonetheless, in case someone else was taken in ... I'll expand on Phillippe's response a bit. The global sea ice plot at Cryosphere Today shows a clear downward trend. All studies of land ice on Greenland show significant mass loss (see elsewhere on this site) and recent studies of Antarctica are showing the same sort of decline (also referenced on this site). That's all the "polar ice" so, yes, total polar ice is decreasing. As for the NW passage, there was exactly one single-year passage before recent years (when there have been many, some in very light craft that couldn't take any serious impact with ice). That historic passage was of course commanded by Henry Larsen in the St. Roch, which was a heavily reinforced schooner. The St. Roch was able to squeeze down leads in ice that would look solid had there been satellite images back then. So really, the passage wasn't "open" in the sense that we use the term - meaning clear blue water on the satellite images. Larsen was a brave man who got lucky. Considering his one other passage took 3 years, we can say he averaged 2y per passage. In 2010, some Norwegians did the EW passage and the NW passage in a couple of months, using an ultralight fiberglass trimaran. There's just no comparison.
    0 0
37. StElias at 12:26 PM on 12 February, 2011
    I’m new here, I do appreciate this S.S. site and the climate discussion. Does wonders for my blood pressure, nice to read and listen to folk with brains, for a change. I’m not a scientist, lifelong Alaskan though, 71 years. We travel lots. Last February we were in Antarctica. Sent this note home when there: “Three biologists (naturalists) on board, all Brits. one guy spent most of his life here, since shortly after War ll. They’re really concerned over lack of sea ice impact on marine life. We have an "Ice Captain" on board too. He is retired US Coast Guard and had captained our nation’s largest ice breaker, the Polar Star, on scientific expeditions in the Antarctic for years. He spoke to us a couple of times. Right after we left and headed into Drake's Passage he said something interesting "I don't get into these "Global Warming" arguments because I am not a scientist. However, I will tell you this, my first summer here was in 1984, no way we could have taken a ship this size, back then, into the areas where we have just been. There was so much ice then that even a consideration of doing so would have been ridiculous."
    0 0
38. rockytom at 10:04 AM on 13 February, 2011
    As a geologist I must defend the science. However, as a geologist I find Harrison Schmitt an embarrassment. Obviously, he is a geologist that has been blinded by his conservatism and possibly hasn't read a scientific paper outside his specialty in some time. I don't intend to write an ad hominem piece, but there are so many more like him, not just geologists but "scientists" like S. Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke, Jr., etc. The Earth is warming and mankind is the major contributor and those who deny this have not looked at the evidence no matter what their background. One would think a geologist (an Earth scientist) would be able to read and understand climate science, which is after all an Earth science. Thanks for all you do on this blog! And I do mean all the contributors. Tom
    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.