Despite the bizarre insistence of climate deniers (see below) that, any time now, the world is going to plunge into their long-forecast “cooling”, in the vast sprawling wastes of the arctic, reality quietly continues to unfold.
This year’s satellite view from NASA below-
I don’t fancy myself as Ultimate Judge.
Except when it comes to judging AGW as a hoax perpetrated by fraud committing scientists. Yes, you are so objective.
Now you’ve gone ga-ga. You have no idea what my opinions are on AGW and fantasize about me being a conspiracy theorist. You’re pathetic to say the least.
You’re pathetic to say the least.
I’m not the one siding with Goddard.
I’m (one of the ones) siding with Steven Goddard. He was right.
He’s not infallible. He’s not always right. Nobody is. But he was certainly right this time.
Peter owes him an apology, and now you do, too.
dave – NevenA didn’t mean if you or I agreed with Steven Goddard on this particular topic. He meant, we “side” with Goddard in the sense that we would support him no matter what.
That is an absurd proposition…but NevenA is of course used to that kind of attitude, otherwise he’d be screaming left, right and center for that science-denying Climate Crock post claiming that sea level rise is “accelerating”.
I’m not siding with Goddard on this or any other topic. The whole concept is meaningless. Get a grip on the fact this isn’t Monday Night Football.
Regarding the Goddard post, I think that it’s critical that he himself chose the title “Arctic Sea Ice Continues to Recover”. That sentence is not an interpretation of his statement, it *is* his statement. Sure, he qualified it later — but he himself chose to boil it down to that wording. Don’t blame somebody else for quoting him verbatim.
Wrong, Chris. Steven Goddard did not “qualify it later.” He was perfectly clear from the beginning. It was only Peter’s selective quoting from him that was confusing.
The very first words in Goddard’s post were:
The link pointed to where he got the graph directly above it.
By “our friends” Steven was referring to the alarmists who were excitedly predicting that the “recovery” from 2007’s record low Arctic sea ice levels was ending, and that 2011 Arctic sea ice extent would finally fall below 2007’s record low.
Steven was right. “Our friends” were wrong.
followed by a copy of the then-current NORSEX graph
As I’ve said to Steven Goddard: he should show all extent and area graphs, especially the ones with better sensors, algorithms and resolutions. Not just the ones that suit his propaganda du jour best.
Every year since 2007 has had more ice than 2007.
This sentence is also very misleading, as Steven Goddard cannot be sure this is the case. Especially since he has proven many times that his knowledge on Arctic sea ice is quite limited. Take for instance this post which is a real blow to the bit of credibility he might have had left.
Dave Burton, why do you so zealously defend a cherry picker and distorter like Steven Goddard? Are you a real skeptic or not? This is your litmus test.
Thanks for correcting me, Dave. I was trying to be charitable to Omnologos, and went too far.
Dr. Julienne Stroeve: “There’s really no place else on the planet right now that is changing as fast as the arctic…”
Actually, no. There is drastic, dramatic change occurring in densely populated areas as well…but people avert their eyes.
Check out this blog http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/ for photos, video and links to research.
Trees are dying everywhere, not from climate change, but from other emissions from burning fuel that create invisible, toxic ozone.
How is your garden growing?
Witsendnj, ozone is a significant pollutant only in urban areas, and (in the USA) it’s not getting worse. Here’s a quote from an article about a 2010 American Lung Assn report on air quality in American cities:
“Los Angeles topped the list for worst ozone pollution. Nevertheless, the current report struck a hopeful chord by noting that the city, nonetheless, recorded its second-lowest ozone levels since 2000.”
Here are some graphs showing the improvement (reduction) in ozone pollution in the USA over the last few decades:
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ozone.html