This is Karl's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Karl's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Karl
Recent Activity
Neven, your blog your rules as usual. As I'm not welcome to post due to my conceptual differences, I shall resume lurking...
Toggle Commented Oct 25, 2012 on Looking for winter weirdness at Arctic Sea Ice
Both of you have fallen for inductive reasoning and generalisations which is questionable for those purporting to be scientific. You admit that we have had similar blocking patterns before but your observer bias just will not let you go beyond your stagnant conclusions. Plus you fail to accept the limits and uncertainties of the data available but still you rush to condemn those who would question your thinking. Has science really become the property of the loudest most aggressive blog bully now?
Toggle Commented Oct 25, 2012 on Looking for winter weirdness at Arctic Sea Ice
The gist that folk are trying to somehow link blocking patterns to climate change. Funny how we've only really become aware of them since we've developed the technology to be aware of them. No coincidence there then!
Toggle Commented Oct 25, 2012 on Looking for winter weirdness at Arctic Sea Ice
Folks will be telling us next that the East Coast of the USA has never seen a tropical cyclone before!
Toggle Commented Oct 25, 2012 on Looking for winter weirdness at Arctic Sea Ice
Deep low pressure North Atlantic systems are quite common, get a grip folks and stop hyping up normal weather, are we going to be remembered as a generation of panic merchants?
Toggle Commented Oct 25, 2012 on Looking for winter weirdness at Arctic Sea Ice
Chris, I am a Doctoral student at a leading UK teaching university, Before that I was an engineer in industrial measurement and process control for 22 years with a BSc (hons) as well as a BA in History and a Master of Education. I teach science teachers, mainly physics, part time and study and research the rest. So your comments were not only hurtful but also I would suggest libelous and as such warrants an apology. I do not accept CAGW but rather see natural cycles as being the main driver of climate change all powered by the main power source available, the sun. I also believe we are also squandering vast amounts of money on CAGW that should be spent on real environmental problems as well education and caring for the poor. So you come over as rather foolish, especially as Neven knows that I have constantly commented on his drift towards more warmist advocacy on this blog and less science reporting. [Karl, there is no drift. I'm entirely transparent about my views and opinions; see 'Climate Disclaimer' at the top in the right hand bar. I do not believe we can discount the possibility that what is going on in the Arctic will have (big) consequences. I also believe the emission of greenhouse gases causing the warming of atmosphere and oceans has something to do with it. I don't think that's a crazy position.]
Hey Chris, I need a break from all you whinging Warmists anyway, far too much to do on my doctorate than waste time here. It's got old and stale and besides I can find the data minus the bias elsewhere. As for your advice well you know where that belongs! [So long, Karl, and thanks for all the fish. N.]
Ah well, it had to happen eventually. A site that was great for science has morphed into a full blown warmist propoganda blog. Truly a great pity!
Well FrankD you are a fine example of why lurkers do not post as often as the folk who like to put themselves up as the de facto gate keepers of a site. Soft sciences are called that for a reason. Of course this conversation could continue and that's the whole point, to give certain folk a rationalisation for their own existence! But as I said, I come to this site for different reasons.
Folks, you should stop and think. Not everyone who visits blog sites finds it necessary to bolster their egos by commenting endlessly. There are always far, far more lurkers than commenters. Yes, Most of us know all of the related climate sites, especially those long in the tooth such as myself. Indeed some of us, including myself, have been associated with measuring and modelling climatic factors for, perhaps, far too long. The fact that we do not need to debate and create even more diatribe in what is an already over stuffed area may be an indication that we feel comfortable in our own cognitions and do not (very often) feel the need to create any reifications of them online. Climatic models are pure abstraction the only real thing about them are the quantitative data put into them. If their outputs are not verified by real measurements then they remain abstract constructions. Now your ontological stance may have a problem with that but mine does not. That is not to say models are not useful, of course they are, but only as far as they verify reality and in this case I believe they do not. Oh and please do not quote SKS (or indeed WUWT) to folks endlessly, I come to this site for the data, that should in itself be an indication that some folk can think for themselves!
@ Marktime, i'd suggest you are trying to close down rationale thought. Models are mere predictions, fiction only until later facts show how well they relate to the real world. The only other place we have on Earth where sea ice melts and refreezes each year is the Antarctic. To ponder why the models are only working, and poorly at that, for the Northern hemisphere and not the Southern is something any rationale person might ponder on. Oh and your suggestion that I need to be 'educated' was insulting, but then you knew that. As for defending a theory, real science doesn't need to be defended, it needs to be proved, you may think AGW has, I do not. Neven does a great job here, but as I've repeatedly said in the past, it is a great pity he allows the science to be coloured by certain folks politics at times, but then maybe the record melting ice has made these folk more courageous in their viewpoints. I don't post very often as I'm more interested in the data than peoples' views, but feeding frenzies as we've seen over the recent ice melt bother me for their lack of rationality.
We seem to be under some delusion that the Arctic sea ice is somehow not going to refreeze due to its record melt this year, odd it always seems to! Now, as to why the melt, well we could look at natural cycles powered by solar cycles which cause cycles of ocean heating which would lag some time behind and due to omplex ocean currents and mixing cause other cycles. Or we could, as many do, look at a trace gas that somehow is only causing warming at certain times and in certain places. Sorry, but all in all, AGW driven by CO2 is just not looking logical with the factual information we have, no matter what the models might want to say. Cries of panic and the end of the world might be fashionable in 2012 but it all seems to getting a bit too doomladen around here recently.
It would be global apart from the matter of that 'extra' million square kilometres of ice down in the Antarctic right now, where's the model for that? Of course next year will be a challenge, especially if another Arctic storm doesn't appear. Can't wait!
No matter the merits of the speakers or their political views, it is such a pity that 'this' site has seemed to become more and more political and less scientifically neutral. So much so that the political and ultra alarmist commentators seemed to have taken over what was a site well regarded for the reporting of the facts, with the occassional AGW comment from Neven which is fine, after all it's his hard work that makes this all happen. But it would seem that this site has come over all Joe Rommish recently. No doubt I will be shouted down for just wanting to see and hear about the science. But to be honest, for me, the politics is just so much hot air!
I love it whem folk tell me I can't ponder on something because 'other' scientists have looked at that before, sorry I don't buy into that argument. Why use the word meme when idea would have done? At least you didn't use the word of the moment, concept. Sounds like one of my students trying to impress me with their knowledge rather than their understanding. As for the lack of other research, well you must be an outside observer not to realise how a prevailing paradigm, like CO2 forcing, can bias many research proposals, especially original research, but maybe that's a meme too far for some folk to comprehend.
Odd how they seemed to ignore repeated short term weather and wind patterns, observer bias maybe? How easily they blamed the sea-ice dynamics for increased ice extent in the Antarctic but could not use the same logic for the decreasing ice in some parts of the Arctic and increasing in others, unlike the NSIDC who seem to be able to actual see what is there http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Eventually, folk might accept that short term repeated events can exist within much longer overall patterns that can seem to be driving much faster towards a certain outcome yet can just as quickly turn around and move in another direction. Time will tell on that one. So in my opinion a rather limited review of their own beliefs rather than a full investigation of all the causes of ice dynamics. But it is good that they have posted it, at least their views can be held against actual developments in the future. I see we also have to bear the fallacy of thinking we know how thick ice was more than a few decades ago, we don't, more's the pity, so any argument concerning actual ice volumes is limited. The researcher in me would love to see the ice not melt, just so that we could escape this CO2 paradigm and get back to real research. But then again a pragmatic part of me hopes it does carry on decreasing as a switch to increasing ice would be a very bad thing, as that would indicate a move to a new ice age and that would be far, far worse than the negligible warming we have had recently. Sorry if that upsets the CO2ists out there, but there are some of us out here that think climate is far more complicated and messy than you might have us believe and this adherence to the almighty carbon god is just restricting so much other research.
Neven, I'm just wondering where that heat source will be, the Northern Pacific looks pretty cold at the moment. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/wksst/5.gif Some of that cooling will be due to the melting ice, but the rest? As for the other side of the Arctic, my money has always been on the effects of weather, rather than climate, on ice extent, with some underlying ocean cycles thrown in for good measure. But whatever the cause, thanks for all your hard work on this site. It is great to have a such a reliable source of information (even if I don't always agree with all of the commentary!).
Toggle Commented May 2, 2012 on 2011/2012 Winter Analysis at Arctic Sea Ice
I really used to appreciate this site for reporting the data around arctic ice, but recently there seems to be more of an agenda to push political rather than scientific arguments, descending even into personal attacks. A great shame as it, in my opinion, diminishes the scientific credibility of Neven's excellent site and makes it less available as a data point for teaching my students. Could we have just the facts and leave the dogma to all the other climate sites, AGW or Warmist?
Toggle Commented Mar 3, 2012 on A first clue at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob how about one from yesterday, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/16/arctic-ice-refreezing-after-falling-short-of-2007/ Even I can not get more up to date than that, not without having a crystal ball, that is! Neven has establish this site as one respected by all, isn't that a good thing? Mr Dodger, read what is written, not what is not.
Toggle Commented Sep 17, 2011 on And now, a word for our sponsors at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob, yes the evidence is from sceptical sites that reference Neven's site. That surely is a good thing? As for bias free science, well as someone who teaches science in a major university I guess I know it can be done and dare I say it, should be done? Even if it is difficult at times, I'll leave the politics etc to the other faculties. Maybe as scientists we do need to take back the ownership of science from special interest groups and people who are using science to advance their own agendas rather than advance science. A scary idea at present I know but maybe we could start by reminding people that the application of science is called technology. For example the work by Rutherford,Bohr, Becquerel, the Curies, Einstein etc on atomic structures which led to nuclear physics was science, the work done on the Manhattan Project building an atom bomb was technology and engineering. How folk use technology, well that can have as many political, economic, social contexts etc as you like and that’s where they should be debated. Is it so bad, just for a change, to just have the science? Or put it this way, isn’t it enough to want to understand the physical world around us and then leave it to other places and people to add whatever value to that understanding as they deem fit? I guess that's all I am going to say on the matter as I really do appreciate Neven's considerable work on providing us all with this marvellous resource.
Toggle Commented Sep 17, 2011 on And now, a word for our sponsors at Arctic Sea Ice
Well let's put it simply, Neven's site was a place I came for science, I'm afraid it is sadly moving into the same catergory as Climate Progress and WUWT et al. All I was commenting on was, is it asking too much to have just the science? I mean there are plenty of sites for politics etc... And as for science being influenced by politics etc, I can hear a Granny sucking very loudly on an egg... :)
Toggle Commented Sep 16, 2011 on And now, a word for our sponsors at Arctic Sea Ice
Has science become so corrupted and coloured by politics from all sides that we can no longer just do science? I think the last comments, sadly, show this to be the case.
Toggle Commented Sep 16, 2011 on And now, a word for our sponsors at Arctic Sea Ice
Neven, what a great shame you've done this! I came here for the facts about ice coverage and some really interesting science. Now you've contaminated it with politics. What a great pity that your excellent work now has to been seen through a certain perspective instead of for what it should be, scientific. More so because so many sceptics also gave great value to your work, a pity you have lost that trust.
Toggle Commented Sep 15, 2011 on And now, a word for our sponsors at Arctic Sea Ice
Karl is now following The Typepad Team
Sep 15, 2011