About Tor E Aslesen

An allrounder in natural sciences working in high school

Blir det virkelig mindre og mindre sjøis i Arktis eller den sterke Goreeffekten?

bronsealder slange mann
september areal 1979-2012

McKibben mente da han mottok Sofieprisen at 80% av sommerisen var “tapt”. 40% er nok et mer korrekt estimat og siden har ikke sommerisareal vært mindre enn i 2012 i Arktis

Vi blir til stadighet fortalt at havisen i Arktis forsvinner mer og mer. Den kjente klimaaktivisten Bill McKibben skrev da han mottok Sofieprisen at i 2013 var 80% av sommerisen tapt.( http://www.sofieprisen.no/Articles/757.html)

Det riktige tallet på den tiden var vel nærmere 40%. som vist på figuren Men jeg tror ikke han må levere tilbake millionene han fikk i prisen fra Gaarder. Tapet pr år var i gjennomsnitt omtrent 100000 kv km gjennom 35 år som gir 3,5 mill kv km av ca 9 mill kv km i 1979 som kan ha vært nær et toppår for arktisk havisareal. Denne omtrentligheten ser ut til å være regelen snarere enn unntaket for klimaaktivister og deres faglige rådgivere. Som vi ser nedenfor ble 2012 et bunnår for sommerisen og den har økt med ca 1 mill kv km eller ca 10 % i forhold til 1979 og 30% i forhold til 2012. Al Gore hevdet at det ville være 0 mill kv km i 2013 i sin Nobeltale i 2007 så vi kan kan vel kalle dette den sterkeste Goreffekten siden det ofte blir kaldt der den tidligere amerikanske visepresidenten skal holde tale om globale klimaendringer eller global oppvarming som det ofte ble kalt før.

Forskere skremmes av sjokkfunn i Arktis: – Vi har aldri sett noe som dette før.

https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/forskere-skremmes-av-sjokkfunn-i-arktis—vi-har-aldri-sett-noe-som-dette-for/70129973

Sitat fra denne artikkelen:

«Det er allerede godt kjent at sjøisen i Arktis smelter. Og det i et tempo som stadig overrasker forskere verden over. Det blir mindre og mindre sjøis i Arktis, og det er en trend som bare fortsetter og fortsetter, sier klimaforsker Bjørn Hallvard Samset ved Cicero til Dagbladet.»

Historisk har det vært mange isfrie arktiske somre selv om det er en stund siden og ennå er ikke dette påvist i moderne tid selv om det ble spådd av Al Gore i hans Nobeltale i 2006 skulle inntreffe i 2013. Det var året sommerisen faktisk ser ut til å ha begynt en årlig økning.

http://www.ngu.no/nyheter/mindre-i-polhavet-6-7000-år-siden-0

Tallene viser ikke et slikt bilde entydig. Sommerisen har ikke nådd lavere enn i 2012 og i juli i år var det 1 mill kvkm mer havis enn i juli 2012. Rundt 2006 snudde tendensen til vårsmelting til stadig mindre. Isvolumet i Arktis sommeren 2018 er også i overkant av gjennomsnittet de siste tiår.

smelting 79-17

Differansen mellom isareal i juni og desember viser utflating av smelting som mer sannsynlig enn lineær økning

isareal juni 2000-2018

Differansen mellom isareal i juni og desember viser utflating av smelting som mer sannsynlig enn lineær økning

isareal des 00-18

Differansen mellom isareal i juni og desember viser utflating av smelting som mer sannsynlig enn lineær økning

 

Forsiktig kan vi si at arktisk isareal avtok mest i perioden 1979 til 2006, men at perioden 2006 til 2018 er preget av mindre smelting og for sommerisen økning fra 2012 til 2018 til et nivå som er sammenliknbart med 2006. dr. Samsets melding grenser til «fake news» etter min oppfatning. Jeg forstår at CICERO ikke vil dele plattform med noen som stiller spørsmål ved grunnleggende målinger av de klimafaktorer de selv framhever.CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180916

Alle data fra det danske meteorologisk institutt
Månedlig middel for arktisk isareal 1979-

Arktisk isvolum

 

Reproducibility, not “differing belief systems” in science

A tweet from an Australian who is entering the scientific community as a paleoclimatologist goes like this:

«The anomalous weather station or reef that survived bleaching is not the point. It’s a strawman argument caused by a fundamental difference of beliefs and values around the climate. We don’t need myth busting – we need to recognise and address differing belief systems»(my boldface)

The scientist in question is Claire Krause calling herself @Clair_science on Twitter and the event is a convention on a joint australian-american meteorology and oceanography AMOS 2018 in Sydney, Australia in February, 2018.

Gavin Schmidt who is heading the key  climate institution the Goddard Space science institute where she also is employed «liked» her tweet without a comment. We cannot be sure that dr.Schmidt totally agreed with her but he had no comments on it.

My point of view is that science is based on testing ideas against measurements. Anomalous measurements cannot be decided for by some “belief system”. Reprocibility or attempts of “myth busting” is a lot more scientific and not addressing differing belief systems!

Reproducibility in science

Measurements can take a lot of different forms but they all essentially lead to some number or numbers that evaluate the idea by making it more or less probable. Ideally with a contrary idea that is made less possible or negligibly possible by a certain standard most scientists agree to in the particular field of research. After that, some other more or less competent scientist must try to replicate the procedure as complete as possible and see if the found probablilties for evalutation of the idea is reproducible. Ideally the idea itself does not need to be evalutated, only the test of the idea. If the results are found to be falsified or not some other researcher should test the idea with another experiment or procedure of some sort and evaluate the probablity of being it falsified or not with a new and different «null-hypothesis» but keeping the original idea intact. Again this work should be reproduced by another group of scientists as similar as possible and give the same results without evaluating the idea itself. This should go on and on and after some time, preferably years or perhaps a whole scientists’ career before being entered into textbooks and considered liable for further work.

The PhD in reproducing past climates Claire Krause seems not to be concerned with reproducing scientific results only by the beliefs behind climate or climate science. To my mind she tries to make critisism look like «myth busting» appearantly thinking of the Discovery show where myths from film and media is being tested. The kind of testing they did in that show mimics reproducing ideas or theories which should normally be the main thing in the process of peer reviewing science. «Myth busting» should be instrumental in science and this person with a PhD fresh in the scientific community seems to have no regard for this.

But she is not alone. Reproducibility in science is an issue both in natural as well as social sciences. Scientists seems to avoid it for convenience or for not insulting their colleags. Such is the case with an Australian fellow scientist of Claire Krause dr.Peter Ridd. It is possible that Krause was thinking of dr.Ridd when she made the remark on weather stations and living coral reefs but he is in bitter conflict with his institution, James Cook university. Not sacked, but accused for being uncollaegial. In the beginning of the process last year he was not even allowed to tell his wife about the case.

In an article on Fox News dr. Ridd does not deny that the coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef could be in crisis, he only states that the research is failing so one cannot judge properly on the matter. This has obviously insulted or incriminated his fellow scientist and made his university take a stand that he is opposing. He does this after 30 years of research on the matter and many publication on it. The official position of his institution on the state of the Great Barrier Reef(GBR) is that it is in grave danger primarily because of human industrial activity. They are probably taking the belief system mentioned in Krause’s tweet seriously but to dr Ridds opinion not the reproducibility of the results on the state of the GBR. His belief system which he has come to by his research is that like wildfires are a necessary condition for life in the Australian outbacks so is the more or less wrecking of the coral reefs a natural part of a natural cycle.

The comfortable climate?

In another tweet Krause which might give us an idea of her daily thoughts on climate science states that we should return to a «comfortable» climate.

«If we take carbon out of the atmosphere, does the climate bounce back? Andrew Lenton says no! The climate system is complex, and doesn’t move in a straight line. We may not be able to get back to the the climate we we’re comfortable with.(my boldface)»

(https://mobile.twitter.com/Claire_Science/status/960397144191508480)

I wonder what scientific value the concept of «comfortable» climate has. I suppose it is compared to the hypothetical future catastrophic climate condition they postulate for the next 100 years. I think that the same «belief system» is necessary to understand what a comfortable climate is.

Her answer to me about what comfortable climate was

«By comfortable climate I simply meant familiar climate; climate we know how to operate in.»
https://mobile.twitter.com/Claire_Science/status/961042847108538369

This is where belief systems and not science lead you to.