Yes, its only a 31 year record, but the trend continues and to quote from their article:

>>All indications are that sea ice will continue to decline over the next several decades,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. “We are still looking at a seasonally ice-free Arctic in twenty to thirty years.”<<

Translated, an Arctic Ocean ice-free over summer, a condition likely not seen in 4 million years. As NSIDC note in their article, ice reflects sunlight and water absorbs sunlight, so an ice-free summer Arctic is heating the Arctic Ocean waters. This will lead to even more Arctic warming.

I have heard this said and seen it written many times. But this idea misunderstands how science works. We don’t censor. Period. No-one is ever ‘kicked out’ except for fraud, i.e. making stuff up. Data is data. Interpretation is subject to debate.

All scientific publishers have a code of ethics for both authors and reviewers. Amongst other things, reviewers and authors must declare any conflict of interest; one of the most important COI is do we stand to gain financially if the research is published or not published? As part of this, any funding, whether a govt. research grant or corporate support, must be declared in the published article – so an article on climate change funded by Exxon-Mobil may be judged differently than one funded by say Greenpeace, or one funded from a govt. research grant; the latter is the only one likely to be unbiased, but potentially all 3 are unbiased, or biased – but at least the reader can see the potential biases. Same goes for place of employment; a scientist employed by an oil company vs. a university or an environmental organization – who is potentially biased? Declaration allows the reader to make their own judgement.

A similar COI solely for reviewers is whether we stand to gain through the advancement of our own research through rejecting an author’s research for publication. The latter is to stop other scientists blocking (or ‘censoring’) other scientists work from being published just because we disagree with their interpretation (e.g. ‘arguing against the consensus’) or because they have ‘scooped’ us (i.e., beat us to press with a similar study).

In the peer review process, any corrections, changes recommended or advice to accept or reject must follow the criteria set by the publisher for these, and critically MUST be evidence based. In other words, I couldn’t as either an editor or reviewer reject a scientist’s research paper for publication simply because I disagreed with their interpretation, or because they ‘argued against the consensus’. Authors also have an opportunity to challenge any changes or disagreements with reviewers as part of the normal peer review process. Far from a process leading to censorship, in fact, published research disagreeing with your opinion offers an opportunity to publish a rebuttal (usually in the same journal in a later issue), or write a paper presenting counter arguments. I can only recommend ‘reject’ if the manuscript contains fundamental errors of logic, miscalculations that affect the conclusions, or (very rarely) if scientific fraud or other misconduct is detected (usually stealing someone else’s work or plagiarism; fabrication of data is truly rare). Journals wil publish retractions later if the peer review process fails to detect errors or fraud and faulty research gets published (so-called ‘cold fusion’ is an example).

Most science journals have web pages devoted to explaining their review process and ethical guidelines for both authors and reviewers. Typically, these pages are freely available and do not require a subscription to the journal.

The ethical guidelines for the science journal ‘Nature’, which frequently publishes climate change papers, can be found here (look under ‘Editorial and publishing policies’): http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/

The ethical guidelines for publishing in the science journal ‘Geology’, arguably the top journal for earth science research in North America, is found here: http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/ethics.htm

Most journals use a process where the reviewer remains unknown to the author(s). This rule is relaxed by some journals with the permission of the reviewers. Anonymous review is better as the reviewer then feels free to ‘not risk offense’ and be as critical as needed.

The reviewing process is mostly a free service that we scientists provide to the science journals. I don’t receive a cent from any journal for my reviews, nor for the ‘associate editor’ work I have done. That is the normal situation. I guess the main reason is economic, but philosophically I suppose this means I have no financial incentive to either recommend ‘reject’ or ‘accept’ for publication. (journal editors, however are usually paid positions) Sometimes I have been paid a small ‘honorarium’ for reviewing a book (typically $100-$200, or a free copy of a book, or a temporary 25% discount on books they publish).

So, no one is getting ‘kicked out’ and no one is getting censored. Any scientist who claims they are, is probably submitting substandard (i.e. unverifiable or error filled) research (see publishing guidelines on the journal websites). And frankly, the big money would be in ‘proving’ AGW wrong. I’d get the cover of Nature!

Thanks, David. A very thorough and helpful comment as always! -Kate

I have some hesitation with the use of the word ‘debate’ because the ‘debate’ is in the media, not amongst climate scientists. It is true, however, as I have noted elsewhere on climatesight, that there are many geologists who ask the same question (I used to be one of them), in part rooted in their understanding of large scale earth processes that have driven past oscillations of climate; CO2 levels have been much higher than now in the past and climate at these times was sufficiently warmer that forests grew at the North and South poles (see Zachos et al. 2008, Nature 451, 279-283 (17 January 2008), doi:10.1038/nature06588; see also Ballantyne et al. 2010, Geology 38 (7), 603-606, doi: 10.1130/G30815.1 – this is free to read).

These past ‘greenhouse intervals’ – the Eocene (50 million years ago) and Pliocene epochs (4 million years ago) – were not in any way related to human activity as they predate humans by several million years. So is current climate change, which is due primarily to CO2 and other greenhouse gases increasing in the atmosphere, due to human activity? The answer lies in 2 points:

1) CO2 and the other GHGs are the main forcing for climate warming (and most climate scientists do – see Dr. Richard Alley’s Dec 2009 AGU talk here: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml);

Past episodes of climate change that triggered the deglaciations at the start of each inter-glacial (i.e. the last 2 million years) are generally understood to be as much due to changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun as they are due to rising CO2 levels (see Zachos et al. 2008 citation above) – the Milankovitch model for ice-ages. But prior to then, GHGs, principally CO2 were the primary forcings (see Richard Alley talk, link above).

2) given point 1), where has the extra CO2 come from? In the geological past, CO2 rose in the atmosphere due to geological processes – massive volcanic eruptions etc. Several studies have shown that all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere comes mainly from burning fossil fuels – it has a different isotopic signature than CO2 from natural processes. Below is a link to RealClimate that explains this. I hesitate to use a secondary source, but the citations of the primary scientific studies that support this understanding are found on that website: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

David G.

“This year’s early clearing of sea ice probably resulted from record warm temperatures this past spring over the Western Canadian Arctic, as well as the decline in older, multiyear ice in the channel over recent years. Spring 2010 was the warmest in the region since 1948: some regions of the Western Canadian Arctic were more than 6°C (11°F) above normal.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

Note the statement ‘warmest in the region since 1948 … more than 6°C above normal’.

Why 1948? That’s because meteorological records for the Western Arctic only started then. But we can use Inuit oral tradition and records of ships that have traversed these waters in the past 150 years to know that we are seeing very unusual conditions in the Arctic, and not just the Western Canadian Arctic.

The often quoted claim of a cold winter in the Arctic this past year is rooted in some misconceptions: 1) a single year or even a pair of years isn’t really relevent, it is the trend over decades that matters, and this year is on trend for ever warmer conditions and less sea-ice (see same website above); and 2) the apparent ‘recovery’ of Arctic sea-ice over March and April 2010 was erroneously interpreted by climate change deniers as indicating a return to ‘normal conditions’, when it was an anomaly due to cold weather and winds from the north over the Bering and Barents Seas.

The NSIDC website notes on 2 separate posts:

1) “Arctic sea ice extent at end of December 2009 remained below normal, primarily in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic. Average air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean were much higher than normal for the month, reflecting unusual atmospheric conditions.” http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/010510.html

2) “temperatures over the central Arctic Ocean remained above normal and the winter ice cover remained young and thin compared to earlier years.” http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/040610.html

Conclusion? The Arctic continues to warm and Arctic sea-ice continues to get smaller at the end of each summer. Right on the trend of the past 30+ years.

David G.

Thanks for all these great explanations, David. Here is a great study about Inuit traditional knowledge of the Arctic, from Inuvialuit in this instance. -Kate

1. Perhaps I should have said man is the only cause. I wasn’t clear enough. Sorry. But I want to know, am I still a denier?

2. The point there is that no matter what the cause under discussion, the strident, fundamentalist, hardline believers, muddy the water, destroy the picture and the sound with their “over the top” retoric. That makes it very difficult for anyone with a point of view to be heard. Please re read what I said in those 2 paragraphs.

3. Leonardo Da Vinci! Yup, that is who I am talking about. He, and a host of others were, in their day, not believed, persecuted for their scientific beliefs and in the long run, proven right. Who do you believe, Darwins theoreums of the respected christian scientists that do their best to disprove them.

4. [inflammatory]

1. “I am not so arrogant as to believe that man is the cause.”

This is a common statement that places humans at the centre, often I think based on religious views. eg. God created and controls the earth, humans can do what they like and the earth will be put right.
But one can easily say that it is arrogant to think we can not damage the planet, probably more arrogant.

So where does this get us?
The comment is irrelevant in the context of better understanding.

2. “Is it mankind with our daily living habits? Or can it be part of a long term oscillation of our environment?”

All species alter their environment. The other issue is that it is clear some humans do more damage than others, so it isn’t a question of all humanity being wrong. Probably the only humanity wide issue is population growth, carbon footprints are an issue of culture, politics, history etc.

3. “Peer reviewed science has proven over and over again that it can be wrong, as well as right. Just ask Leonardo, or countless others.”

Leonardo??
You mean Da Vinci?
He pre-dates the modern definition of science you refer to in your statement (peer review).

You say science is faulty. That does not stop us today from flying aircraft, drive cars, use the internet or build computer memory based on quantum physics. All of this is based on ‘faulty’ science. Your mistake appears to be that you expect perfection and that knowledge used in this high carbon world is perfect and that is why we use it rather than living in caves.
I suggest that instead of being cynical, that you accept that the faults in our knowledge do not matter a great deal when the knowledge is applied.
This applies just as much to climate science as it does anything else. The fact that climate science produces results that don’t appear to help humanity in a positive way is irrelevant, it is no different to the science that produces the technology that allegedly benefits us.