ecs again

angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 9, 2017 at 3:10 am

From Paul’s site
“Given your results, what do they imply for the climate sensitivity of the system at the moment. Given that the widely used figure in models is around 3C and you have found them under-
predicting, I assume the ECS from your work would be in the 3.5-4C range?
Yes our constrained central estimate of ECS is 3.7.”

The ECS he uses [I thought we just had a big discussion where you guys said you cannot work out ECS?? practically like this but….] is on average 3.7 instead of the Climate models 3.0.
Plug this into the graphs and you get a 27% higher rate of increase.

Fine.
Not able to afford the paid look so what is studiously not mentioned here is what the “recent” in Earth’s recent observational energy budget refers to.
Please do not tell me that they picked the 3 most recent El Nino years and then worked out an energy budget and ECS on those 3 atypically hot years.
Or just the last 5 years.
Please tell me it refers to the budget worked out from 2000 at least.
ATTP?
Paul?

…and Then There’s Physics says: November 29, 2017 at 4:13 pm
“We can estimate the actual change in radiative forcing and then relate that to the equivalent change in atmospheric CO2, to then produce an estimate of the TCR/ECS. This is essentially what Nic Lewis’s work does”

Presumably not only Lewis but Brown is working out ECS.
A higher ECS, as in this case, gives a greater temperature rise for a doubling of CO2.
The only difference being one uses a long term study of temps and the other a short term study of temps to determine the ECS.
I imagine this study could be done for a number of recent observational ranges.
If one was to choose the 5 years from 2007 to 2012 for comparison the ECS may well have been below 2.0.
Presuming the paper was done on the last 5 years of observation which is a very uneducated guess on my part.
Do we know which time frame the recent observations were done in?

Polar Bears decimated

Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial
Jeffrey A. Harvey Daphne van den Berg Jacintha Ellers Remko Kampen Thomas W. Crowther Peter Roessingh Bart Verheggen Rascha J. M. Nuijten Eric Post Stephan Lewandowsky Ian Stirling Meena Balgopal Steven C. Amstrup Michael E. Mann.

A star studded line up to attack one person, or should I say woman?
Yes. Why not, it is late 2017 after all. I guess they did the paper before Harvey.
They need to attach her.
Ragnaar says:
“I Googled this: population polar bears Crockford gets hits 2, 3 and 4.”

For what it is worth I totally agree with Joshua and Steven on this in their first comments.

The paper is a statement of the obvious. If AGW, ice all melts and polar bears die. Logic impeccable for warmists.
However, If AGW is denied, if ice melt is denied, then polar bears live. Logic impeccable for denialists.

Hence the problem, how many polar bear specialists are there? Like one does not get up real close and friendly like gorillas in the mist. How many reports on numbers are there and how reliable?
Ragnaar again
“There’s is a lack of data. I looked at a few maps, and there are large unknown areas.”

Then there is this
“A boatload of tourists in the far eastern Russian Arctic thought they were seeing clumps of ice on the shore, before the jaw-dropping realisation that some 200 polar bears were roaming on the mountain slope.”.
Perhaps it was fake news. Perhaps 1 litter of 200 babies was born in this area last year.
All I can think of is that if one extrapolates out 200 bears in 1 square kilometer then the number of Polar bears in the Arctic has been sadly and badly underestimated by everyone , including Dr S Crockford.

angech says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

It is good to see Jeff Harvey put up his perspective on his paper.
A few comments for consideration
The article was never about the science.
It was about the *direction the planet is going in and how to save it.
Consequently the aim of the paper

“My final point. Our paper was about scientific transparency and integrity ”
“one of the major aims of the paper was to advise general readers not to take at face value what they read on blogs.”
was lost in the execution which resulted in
“Instead they accuse us of ad hominem smears of Susan Crockford and leave it at that. They can dish it out but can’t take it.”

“[I] and the other authors had the courage to show that blogs which habitually dismiss climate change-related threats to polar bears do not refer to the primary literature but to a blogger that disagrees with the primary literature, and not through scientific journals but through her blog.”

Instead of dismissing a scientist as a mere blogger the intent of the article would have been best achieved by providing the data on Polar Bear numbers, distribution and time changes, real and known firstly extrapolated secondly and then addressing the scientist bloggers extrapolations and conclusions and scientifically, with transparency and clarity, proving her wrong.
Simple.
Can the paper be redone with this aim?

Who raised it first? Polar Bear numbers.
Who then linked it to global warming??
Polar Bear numbers had been in decline because of hunting and human encroachment for ages.
Eli says “The ice is shrinking at times of the year when the bears need it and more.”

May I be so bold as to ask for the quote or source?

Yet Bart’s introduction points out the obvious .
“The polar bear species has survived the previous interglacial ~125,000 years ago. even though during the previous interglacial summers were probably not completely ice-free, as is expected to happen later this century as a consequence of continuing warming.
Besides shrinking sea ice there are currently also other factors that negatively affect polar bears, such as human settlements, industrial activities, hunting, bio-accumulation of toxins, and smaller seal populations.”
[disclaimer yes I have only taken parts of the quote that I like as usual].
At WUWT this comment
“The skeptics of AGW will point to the fact the polar bear population is up to approx 26,000 vs the 10k when hunting was stopped.”
cannot be true?

Eli, I acknowledge that if the ice all went all year round the Polar Bears would be forced to evolve or perish.
How far do you go in insisting a little loss of mid summer ice would imperil them totally in the next 1000 years?

 

Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in a a china shop and then finding the nut was in another building and perhaps was not a nut at all.

“We have clearly hit the target dead-on judging by the bitter response of the climate change skeptics and deniers. They are inadvertantly helping to spread the message.”

As opposed to advertently helping, I guess.

Look Arctic Ice is down on all measures since satellites were “formally”” used to measure it.
The time span is short to know anything about long term trends.
If one shows CO2 increase, and then the CO2 increase shows the warming it is predicted to, then the ice will melt over the long term.
The long term result of this in thousands of years is that Polar Bears may or may not be endangered [they may or may not adapt].
Speculation on linking the two separate calamities if they eventuate is fraught with difficulty and should never have been poster childed in the first place.

“1. Once again the climate science community beclowns itself

angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 2, 2017 at 7:18 am

“1. Once again the climate science community beclowns itself by critiquing an article on non-scientific grounds”.
I did not understand, is he complaining about the article or the article reviewers views?
ATTP
“I simply think that in many cases science communication is aimed more at providing information, than at influencing opinion. Critiquing the former, for not achieving the latter,”
So the problem is critiquing the science- rather than thanking the guys for putting the vital information out there.
A selection of the gist of the article
“”Ice Apocalypse ”
(A Rolling Stone feature earlier this year dubbed Thwaites “The Doomsday Glacier.”)
Next to a meteor strike, rapid sea-level rise from collapsing ice cliffs is one of the quickest ways our world can remake itself. This is about as fast as climate change gets.
Antarctica is a giant landmass — about half the size of Africa — and the ice that covers it averages more than a mile thick.
Around 3 million years ago, when global temperatures were about as warm as they’re expected to be later this century, oceans were dozens of feet higher than today.Previous models suggested that it would take hundreds or thousands of years for sea-level rise of that magnitude to occur
Pollard and DeConto are the first to admit that their model is still crude, but its results have pushed the entire scientific community into emergency mode.
the full 11 feet of ice locked in West Antarctica might be freed up, their study showed.
All this could play out in a mere 20 to 50 years — much too quickly for humanity to adapt.
“It could happen faster or slower, I don’t think we really know yet,”
– ATTP said
“scientists (well, climate scientists, at least) [seem*] incapable of communicating with a public audience and regard them as being in denial when it comes to cognitive science and narrative theory.”
Not these scientists, they have communicated the threat extremely well.
Pity about the science