This is L. Hamilton's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following L. Hamilton's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
L. Hamilton
Recent Activity
Following almost-stable N and 96k drop in S, global SIA on 1/31 is down to 14.48, now just 90k short of a record.
Sent a clean copy of the cycle plot to Neven, so hopefully that's forthcoming on the long-term graphs page. If anyone else wants the file, send me a note. Larry
Toggle Commented Jan 6, 2016 on A difference in nonsense at Arctic Sea Ice
"I'm looking at all 12 months, not just September." By coincidence I updated the 12-month cycle plot yesterday, following NSIDC publication of December 2015 monthly data. This shows the visible decline in both area and extent for every month of the year, 1979 to 2015. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/12_Climate/2015_Cycle_Arctic.png
Toggle Commented Jan 5, 2016 on A difference in nonsense at Arctic Sea Ice
If anyone is curious to know more about the history and ideas behind these ongoing Arctic-perception surveys, there's a brief sketch in the ARCUS newsletter Witness the Arctic from spring of this year (free): https://www.arcus.org/witness-the-arctic/2015/2/article/23160 What's next? While those surveys will continue and experiment with new questions next year, we have two non-survey Arctic projects involving different research teams this fall. One will update our 2014 retrospective analysis of the Sea Ice Outlook, https://www.arcus.org/witness-the-arctic/2014/2/article/21066 This update will analyze data on more than 400 individual predictions over the course of 8 years. The second project is looking at demographics and net migration from 43 Arctic Alaska towns and villages, including some that are said to be "on the front line of climate change" due to severe erosion problems. That project extends earlier work including a paper on "Visualizing population dynamics of Alaska's Arctic communities" (free): http://scholars.unh.edu/soc_facpub/184/
I'm looking for a factual question that is "politically charged", the answer of which would likely be at odds with the global warming enthusiasts mindset. I know you are, you can't let that go, but as I keep saying, I'm not. Or the reverse.
If all the questions you asked were designed to highlight the ignorance of one subset of people They were not, that is your projection. As the "Polar facts" abstract notes, "Analysis indicates that these facts subjectively fall into two categories: those that are or are not directly connected to beliefs about climate change." Having made this observation the paper goes on to focus on facts in the second category, those that are *not* directly connected to beliefs about climate change. Any questions like that in your study? Yes, that's what the rest of the abstract is telling about.
Taking this comment at face value ( i.e. accepting that liberals do reject GMOs, vaccines and nuclear power - which I do not think is true, at least for sure liberals accept vaccines) Ff, my remark was not a comment that should be taken at face value. It's a hypothesis that we tested and found false, as described in two un-paywalled papers. For a quick view it's worth just clicking on this graph http://www.unh.edu/news/releases/2015/08/images/img-7TS2_Figure4.png and that paper itself, reasonably public-friendly, is here, http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/252/
[We've been asking the Arctic sea ice question since June of 2011] So beating a dead horse? No, watching to see whether things change. And on the other hand I could hit you with a study that show skeptics are more knowledgeable about science. Is this the study you're thinking of? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503 There also is this study, which found different results on the point that you mention, and includes a brief discussion of why their findings diverge. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1088937X.2012.684155
As this a poll where are the error bars? Do-it-yourself approximation for 95% confidence interval of a percentage: +/- 100/sqrt(n) where n is the number of observations. So if you have 60% in a survey of 400 people, the confidence interval should be about +/-100/sqrt(400) = +/-5 points. Confidence intervals (calculated more precisely) are drawn for all data points in Figure 1 above. They would make Figure 2 unreadable, but if you wanted to work the overall values out just for fun, we have D 5%, I 7%, R 13%, T 24%, based on 3,795 interviews (design-based F test p < 0.001). Figure 3 shows just the most recent poll, 705 interviews, so you can work out confidence intervals from that. Again, design-based F test p < 0.001. This looks to me a poll where someone/group with a bias goes looking for confirmation. Look again. We've been asking the Arctic sea ice question since June of 2011, and had no reason initially to expect there would be strong political divisions on such a basic physical fact. If those political divisions vanished on the next survey, I'd be delighted. As for the Trump/Hillary supporters thing in Figure 3, as I said that came about by coincidence -- WMUR/CNN commissioned the political question on a survey that also happened to carry my long-running ice question. I was curious to see what happens if you put those together, and the results were striking.
Are you serious? Somehow asking a question about the Arctic Sea Ice is a question about "basic relevant facts" (your words) yet a question about Antarctic Sea Ice is the definition of a "gotcha" question? No, I said that questions "crafted to expose the ignorance of one group of people rather than another" (your words) is the definition of gotcha. And you gave those words as your rationale for the Antarctic question. I think I understand where you are coming from now..... Don't think so. Did you read the abstract?
Democrats' delusions about GMOs or vaccines or whatever. Somewhat off topic but since this point has come up several times in the comments -- as Magma and Joshua noted above, we've done several recent surveys testing whether conservative rejection of science on climate change and evolution has a mirror image in liberal rejection of science on GMOs, vaccines or nuclear power. The evidence so far has been that conservatives are less inclined to trust scientists on all of these topics; there's no sign of the liberal mirror image. For the short version, see this graphic: http://www.unh.edu/news/releases/2015/08/images/img-7TS2_Figure4.png More about where that came in this not-paywalled report: http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/252/ Those are New Hampshire surveys. Another survey from Oregon (also not paywalled): http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/5/3/2158244015602752
asking whether or not ice extent in Antarctica is increasing/decreasing/staying the same is by no means a "gotcha" question. it is just crafted to expose the ignorance of one group of people rather than another. Actually, a question "crafted to expose the ignorance of one group of people" is pretty much the definition of a "gotcha" question, and yes you could slant those in any direction. I don't. While learning that some major factual questions (e.g., Arctic ice, CO2) elicit strong partisan responses, we've also identified other similarly major questions (e.g., is N Pole on land or sea ice? South Pole?) that get lots of wrong answers in a non-partisan way, and used those to construct a very simple, politically-neutral polar knowledge scale. How that scale behaved was a key finding of the Polar Geography paper. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1088937X.2015.1051158?journalCode=tpog20
As for the 2014 blip in Arctic ice "recovery," that was briefly the meme in some circles, although based on a 2-year instead of 30-year time frame.
Thank Joshua, I had not seen those Tamino graphs. I've definitely seen the same pattern in our own data (as has Tony Leiserowitz in his, IIRC). From "A four-party view of US environmental concern" http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2014.976485?journalCode=fenp20 Research on US public concern about environmental issues finds ideology or political party are the most consistent background predictors. Party is commonly defined by three groups: Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Here, using statewide New Hampshire survey data, we elaborate this approach to distinguish a fourth group: respondents who say they support the Tea Party movement. On 8 out of 12 science- or environment-related questions, Tea Party supporters differ significantly from non–Tea Party Republicans. Tea Party supporters are less likely than non–Tea Party Republicans to trust scientists for information about environmental issues, accept human evolution, believe either the physical reality or the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, or recognise trends in Arctic ice, glaciers, or CO2. Despite factual gaps, Tea Party supporters express greater confidence in their own understanding of climate change. Independents, on the other hand, differ less from non–Tea Party Republicans on most of these questions—although Independents do more often accept the scientific consensus on climate change. On many science and environmental questions, Republicans and Tea Party supporters stand farther apart than Republicans and Independents.
I'm sure you could have crafted any number of questions about other hot political topics - and depending on how you crafted them - you would have gotten equally wrong answers on both sides of the aisle. Of course you can craft "gotcha" questions slanted in any direction, but we're aiming for basic relevant facts, not tricky polling. An even more basic question on our most recent surveys asked whether atmospheric CO2 is increasing, with results similar to the Arctic ice one above. https://twitter.com/CarseySchool/status/651074638185918468/photo/1 There is more detailed analysis of which polar questions have political predictors in our Polar Geography paper mentioned in the post. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1088937X.2015.1051158?journalCode=tpog20#.VhQDgCvzVpU Many drivers of polar-region change originate in mid-latitude industrial societies, so public perceptions there matter. Building on earlier surveys of US public knowledge and concern, a series of New Hampshire state surveys over 2011–2015 tracked public knowledge of some basic polar facts. Analysis indicates that these facts subjectively fall into two categories: those that are or are not directly connected to beliefs about climate change. Responses to climate-linked factual questions, such as whether Arctic sea ice area has declined compared with 30 years ago, are politicized as if we were asking for climate-change opinions. Political divisions are less apparent with factual questions that do not suggest climate change, such as whether the North Pole is on land or sea ice. Only 38% of respondents could answer that question correctly, and even fewer (30%) knew or guessed correctly that melting of Greenland and Antarctic land ice, rather than Arctic sea ice, could potentially do the most to raise sea levels. At odds with the low levels of factual knowledge, most respondents say they have a moderate amount or a great deal of understanding about climate change. A combination of low knowledge with high self-assessed understanding characterizes almost half our sample and correlates with political views. The low knowledge/high understanding combination is most prevalent among Tea Party supporters, where it reaches 61%. It also occurs often (60%) among people who do not believe climate is changing. These results emphasize that diverse approaches are needed to communicate about science with people having different configurations of certainty and knowledge.
Image
As longtime ASIB readers may know, my colleagues and I have been tracking US public perceptions of Arctic change. This started with analysis of questions written by others for the nationwide General Social Survey in 2006 and 2010, then shifted to our own questions placed on another nationwide survey in... Continue reading
Posted Oct 4, 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
59
@Jim Hunt Do you think I should now be a bit rueful about my "projection NOT prediction" argument? Well no, a similar discussion has gone on within SIPN. The initial idea for SIO was that all of these contributions should be explicitly viewed as "projections," meaning if...then statements that trace the implications of specific inputs and modeling methods. So they aren't claimed as "predictions," meaning what we think is going to happen. Two things work against that scientific distinction, however: 1) Many of the contributions are statistical rather than model-based, and in statistics "prediction" has a more general meaning, basically the calculated values on the left-hand side of your equation, as in a regression prediction; 2) Scientifically declaring these are "projections not predictions" will probably get lost in general discussion, because as one SIO founder put it, "If it walks like a duck...."
@Chris Reynolds But I find it hard to believe Dr Wadhams is seriously suggesting 1 million this year. Yes, Wadham's 0.98 projection is hard to figure out. As the June SIO report by SIPN nobserves, http://www.arcus.org/sipn/sea-ice-outlook/2015/june Given current central basin sea ice conditions and the lack of a projected atmospheric activity in the central basin (such as a high sea level pressure dipole pattern seen in previous years that is conducive to sea ice loss), there is no a priori information that would support record sea ice loss for summer 2015. Furthermore, for the September sea ice extent to fall below one million square kilometers would require over 100,000 square kilometers of loss each day from June 16th (when the information for this report was collected) until mid-September. Based on actual loss rates from the index of daily sea ice extent for 2007-2014, the likelihood that the next 90 days could sustain such a high rate of loss is less than 1 in 10 million.
@Simon IIRC, Maslowski's projection for an effectively ice-free state around 2016 (2013-19) was in a May 2006 presentation (to the AMS? the link I had is now stale) and therefore was not in reaction to the 2007 melt, or even the 2006. Subsequent media reports are mostly asking whether the projections are on track or not. Thanks, I wasn't aware that Maslowski gave a 2006 presentation mentioning the "2013" projection. The earliest I noticed was his 2007 AGU talk, but reading again I see that he did base it on pre-2007 data. As reported from AGU by the BBC in December 2007: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times. Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections. "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
@John Christensen Check out these recent predictions, which were not made by 'annoying' or 'contrarian' people, but very nice people of scientific reputation, who have promoted these predictions at conferences, senate hearings and many other forums: Your two examples, Maslowski and Wadhams, made outlier predictions, but that in itself does not make them political. Maslowski's analysis was reacting to the dramatic decline of 2007; that was outside of historical experience and people had different ideas about how the system would go from there -- runaway albedo feedback being one hypothesis, more extreme than what most scientists believed, and we now know did not happen. His initial 2013 (and perhaps also the later 2016+/-3) predictions were wrong in one direction. The IPCC guessing late in the 21st century was probably wrong in the other direction. I think Maslowski is a bit rueful now about his early prediction, while seriously working to do better. As for Wadhams, he remains an outlier still -- that's his contribution at lower left in the box plot for the June 2016 SIO report just released last week: http://www.arcus.org/files/resize/sio/23168/sio_boxplot_final-700x510.png
Abstract Many drivers of polar-region change originate in mid-latitude industrial societies, so public perceptions there matter. Building on earlier surveys of US public knowledge and concern, a series of New Hampshire state surveys over 2011–2015 tracked public knowledge of some basic polar facts. Analysis indicates that these facts subjectively fall into two categories: those that are or are not directly connected to beliefs about climate change. Responses to climate-linked factual questions, such as whether Arctic sea ice area has declined compared with 30 years ago, are politicized as if we were asking for climate-change opinions. Political divisions are less apparent with factual questions that do not suggest climate change, such as whether the North Pole is on land or sea ice. Only 38% of respondents could answer that question correctly, and even fewer (30%) knew or guessed correctly that melting of Greenland and Antarctic land ice, rather than Arctic sea ice, could potentially do the most to raise sea levels. At odds with the low levels of factual knowledge, most respondents say they have a moderate amount or a great deal of understanding about climate change. A combination of low knowledge with high self-assessed understanding characterizes almost half our sample and correlates with political views. The low knowledge/high understanding combination is most prevalent among Tea Party supporters, where it reaches 61%. It also occurs often (60%) among people who do not believe climate is changing. These results emphasize that diverse approaches are needed to communicate about science with people having different configurations of certainty and knowledge.
The full article, "Polar facts in the age of polarization" is now open access at Polar Geography: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1088937X.2015.1051158 Here's a sample graphic tracking politicized beliefs about sea ice: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/12_Climate/PF_Fig3b_a.png
A new article on surveys tracking public beliefs about Arctic sea ice was just published online in Witness the Arctic (ARCUS): http://www.arcus.org/witness-the-arctic/2015/2/article/23160 There should be a larger piece in Polar Geography coming out next week. http://www.arcus.org/files/resize/article/images/wta19_2_publicknowledge_tracking_fig_2b_2_june-700x509.jpg
The longterm graphs page here displays my 2013 PIOMAS graphs, but if anyone wants the updated 2014 versions, here is the bar graph of minimum PIOMAS volume: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/12_Climate/2014_sea_ice_PIOMAS_min.png And here is a cycle plot, showing volume for each month 1979-2014: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/12_Climate/2014_Cycle_Arctic_PIOMAS.png
Toggle Commented Apr 8, 2015 on PIOMAS April 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
So IJIS has declined by 30 to 70k each of the last 5 days. Looks like their lowest-max record is safe. year,maxijis 2003,15.0661 2004,14.7014 2005,14.3961 2006,14.1324 2007,14.2097 2008,14.7748 2009,14.657 2010,14.6885 2011,14.1277 2012,14.7091 2013,14.5236 2014,14.4484 2015,13.9421
Toggle Commented Apr 1, 2015 on The Ns are calling the maximum at Arctic Sea Ice