It's a 'slow ice day' — IJIS still figuring out how to make a new 2015 column, and PIOMAS still chewing on the December numbers — so let's make a more fact–free philosophical post in the meantime.
I'm trained in 'theory of science' at University — the oldest and most integral discipline within classic philosophy. I'm particularly interested in logic and the construction of valid (and invalid) arguments. My Jungian personality type also makes me more interested in the topic of discussion than in the individual participants, so all hypotheses of an interpersonal focus are thus rendered baseless.
When I review what in everyday language is called a theory, but in more scientific lingo an hypothesis, I focus on the most basic premises it is built on. Logically, if one of these premises is faulty, the entire argument falls. To me the signature or name signing the hypothesis is just unimportant, as the argument has to stand on its own feet (basically its premises).
Now, in one of the many long pieces of prose arguing for a 'slow transition' hypothesis, one such basic premise seems to be that the current downward trend of the CAB winter sea ice would end at zero in the 2030s, 'but surely no–one expects that'. The premise is followed by an exclamation mark, which for me, as a topic–focused analytical person, just isn't very convincing. Also, with regard to the extraordinarily rapid collapse of the Arctic sea ice, it seems more reasonable to me, at least, to 'expect the unexpected'.
Using such very weak basic premises, the entire hypothesis more or less falls, logically, the way I see it. At least it would fall if this was an integral part of the argument for the hypothesis (which I believe, but am not entirely sure, that it is).
In my own work on the collapse of the Arctic sea ice, I have this autumn looked at the different IPCC models and projections, and found them unconvincing. I have also looked into the extensive criticism of said panel, in both the popular and the scientific press over the past few years.
An idea was thus born to dismiss all the models and focus entirely on the recorded sea ice data. A Cambridge professor of ocean physics has since supported me in this choice of focus, so it cannot be entirely unscientific, as I see it.
The most striking result of my efforts is the graph showing sharp decline of the
annual average volume of sea ice — displayed in this thread — and its simple polynomial trendline pointing to a July 2029 crash of all sea ice, year–round.
When evaluating the critique of this graph, again, as a highly analytical person, as mentioned above, I only consider the critique that can be said to have merit, that is critique that is not baseless or misunderstood or targeted more at the person and his 'conduct' than at the topic at hand; the physics or math or statistics of the graph.
I'm not impressed by this critique, and consequently it doesn't change my view of the timescale of the rapid collapse of sea ice. Less analytical people, or folks with other Jungian personality types, I'm sure, would be very impressed by this critique with or without any merit, simply because of the sheer social pressure to think differently. A Gary Larson comic on 'peer–pressure at the lab' comes to mind, where 3 already visibly mutated scientists are trying to egg the 4th scientist on to drink the stuff in the test–tube.
I particularly am not impressed by critique that mostly focuses on the year in the conclusion or long–term estimate of my work, 2029, dismissing the whole argument because, like above, 'surely no–one expects that'.
If you wanted to falsify the conclusion, you would basically either have to wait until 2029, or you would have to logically argue for the dismissal of one of my basic premises. Just saying that you don't 'like' or 'believe' my conclusion does not impress me or make me change my mind. The reason for this apparent 'stubbornness' on my part is exactly the fact that no integral part of my argument has been challenged in anything resembling a logical manner. To me, then, the argument is as good as before the critique of it began.
The best and most logically based critique of my work has in fact come from myself. This may sound self–congratulatory to many, if not most, but it is still a fact. The critique is that an estimate based entirely on the already recorded sea ice data would likely be too conservative, because entirely new and both unknown and (important!) unexperienced feedback mechanisms could still appear and change the path of the sea ice collapse dramatically.
The odds are any such unexperienced feedbacks would be so–called 'positive' feedbacks, ie feedbacks that strengthen and reinforce the already dramatic pace of the ice–cap collapse.