New Lows: Sea Ice and “Steven Goddard” credibility

September 14, 2011

“Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by an anonymous climate denialist crank, so incredibly sloppy that he even embarrassed arch climate denier Anthony Watts, as shown in this link, and as I showed in one of last year’s “sea ice wrap-up” videos.

At least Chris Monckton has a medical condition that explains his break with reality.  As for this “Goddard” character, well, I have to let you see this headline to believe it.

Which he chose to illustrate with the graph below –

What’s really refreshing and amusing is how “Goddard” was immediately taken to task by none other than Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center researcher whose iconic graph of accelerated sea ice loss I recently featured in a post. See here:

“Steve chose a graph that shows what he wants to portray while ignoring all the other institutions that show either a record low for 2011 or a “tie” with 2007. University of Bremen already announced it is a new record low. In my opinion, given the error margin of the measurement and algorithms, 2007 and 2011 basically tied in their extent this year. NSIDC will likely show 2011 as the second lowest, but again it’s within the error margin (which is about 50,000 sq-km).”

The arm waving we’ll be seeing this year, if NSIDC does not declare a new record, and U. Bremen does, will all be over a distinction without a difference, which is further evidence for my theory that climate denial is a form of autism -deliberately losing itself in a maze of details and completely unable to grasp a gestalt.

Stroeve tagged an addendum to her post, with an assessment of current ice conditions (as of Sept 12)

Remember last September though it looked like the minimum had been reached and then it went down further again. So best to be patient a few more days… 

For now, a look at one of the most telling of ice graphs, the ice volume picture from the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington.

I’ll be featuring more examples of off-the-reality-rails rants from climate deniers in my sea ice update, which I’ll post as soon after the minimum as I can crank it out.

For more from Stroeve, see the video here:


200 Responses to “New Lows: Sea Ice and “Steven Goddard” credibility”

  1. omnologos Says:

    Dave – there’s no way out with mrsircharles. He reads something, takes it as Truth, reports it here. No brain activity necessary. When Skeptical Science later changes history, mrsircharles records the new version and so on and so forth.

  2. […] ruby slippers nonsense about sea ice “recovery” from Joe Bastardi, Anthony Watts, and “Stephen Goddard” crash on the hard rocks of reality, how about let’s give someone a chance who has actually […]

  3. gwn1943 Says:

    Given your comment on autism, I would say that your understanding of it (and compassion for people who have to deal with it and the people they live with) is zero. You might want to do a little learning in that area before you write about it again. — Gary Nickerson

  4. […] to see it? Hell, even your Watts Up With That buddy had to apologize for Goddard's incompetency. New Lows: Sea Ice and ?Steven Goddard? credibility | Climate Denial Crock of the Week Goddard publishes under a pseudonym, and his "credentials" are a bachelor's degree in […]

  5. Now that Arctic Sea Ice is back up to 1972 Levels… as Goddard rightly pointed out… I wonder how Climatecrocks would title an Article about Arctic Ice THIS year 2013??

    • greenman3610 Says:

      not aware that sea ice is down.
      I rely on actual scientists like lead researcher Ted Scambos of National Snow and Ice Data Center
      and the American Geophysical Union’s arctic report card
      and other mainstream science resources, rather than anonymous internet sites. That’s my bias, sorry.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        My particular bias is to overlay some common sense on top of the actual science that greenman looks at. Since ice has thickness as well as lateral extent, common sense tells me that it has volume, and that volume is a more important indicator than the “extent” that the denier trolls keep babbling about. Since it does get so cold “up there” in the winter, there will always be a “skin” of ice forming up there, but the obvious (and huge) long-term decline in volume (that is now going exponential) is the best clue as to where we’ll be in 30 or 40 years.

        • daveburton Says:

          You do know that ice volume and multi-year ice extent are both up, right?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “Up” compared to what, Dave? And how much? Of course I know they’re “up” by some measures (the “MULTI-YEAR extent” is a bit misleading), but it’s mere noise in the long term trend. And here you go prattling on about EXTENT again. Do you ever really read anything the rest of us post, Dave? Did you read what I said about extent versus volume, something I’ve commented on and you have tried to deflect too many times. Or do you just go look in your “Handy NON-facts and Misleading Things for Deniers to Say” manual, pick out some horsepucky that was compiled by someone with no more “science” training than you, and throw it against the wall?

            Go look at the “Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral” Youtube video. It’s only about 3 minutes long. Then tell us how to explain the exponential decline we are seeing over the past few years and the long term linear decline that we have seen in arctic sea ice volume over the past 30+ years. I will not hold my breath waiting because I have no death wish.

            There’s an old joke about an Italian gentlemen who answered a question about the location of Canad by saying that Canada was “uppa U S”. Is your head in Canada? Is that why you can’t get off the “extent” kick? Please bring it back to coastal NC, that utopian land where the real estate agents are all pretty, the computer geeks are all “scientists”, and sea level never rises.

          • omnologos Says:

            not so fast dumboldguy…what Goddard, daveburton and many others are writing about (and myself at times during the years) is the elusion that has taken over much of what passes as climate science.

            It was surface temps before it was heat hiding in the deep oceans. It was decreasing snow before it was increasing snow. It was ice extent before it was ice volume. Etc etc. Whatever happens, there is always a new story devised/concocted to “explain” that whatever is happening is wholly compatible with AGW and especially with the “it’s worse than we thought” meme.

            And sadly that’s all true. Whatever happens _is_ wholly compatible with AGW. We all know that there is no possible observation that would disprove the idea that the climate is changing for the worse (if you know of any, please do tell). This has made the whole enterprise extremely foggy, and constantly bordering between science and faith.

            As for Peter, I wish he did not attempt the logical fallacy henceforth known as the Appell Defense, and consisting in declaration like “I trust the scientists”. In a sentence, if you say “don’t listen to me, listen to the scientists” people might as well heed the first part of the sentence and stop listening to you 🙂

            In fact, if you so trust the scientists then (a) the blog should become simply a site where original articles and press releases are copied verbatim, without commentary by the blog owner (remember, we are supposed to be listening to the scientists, not to bloggers); (b) no comments should be allowed apart from those praising the research and its findings (any other comment would mean we are not listening to the scientists); (c) people would find it natural to go and read the original texts instead of this blog (from the horse’s mouth, to speak). Etc etc.

            I am not advocating that…actually, it’s the opposite. There is a lot to learn here _because_ Peter adds his own commentary, selection of articles and videos, etc. And that is the exact opposite of “I am trusting the scientists”, because it implies that Peter is adding something of his own. He is trusting himself, as he should well do.

            Same applies to the community of commenters.

  6. The thing that kills me is the poor fashion in which the data is presented, the problem with credibility, the lack of trust, and the “narration”.
    For instance, if we look at this year’s chart:

    We see the VOLUME of ice has INCREASED over 2011 levels, about on par with 2012 and 2013 levels.

    Also note:
    The light grey area and the dark grey area. These show “normal” fluctuations. If your “sea ice volume” lands in these areas, it is considered “normal deviation”.

    Further, you have one site claiming 2013 was the “6th lowest on record” and another “2nd lowest on record”… are they reading from the same record? If not, why are there more than one record? If so, how are they so far off?

    Lastly… it seems that most bloggers, “climatecrocks” included, believe people aren’t capable of looking at the data and seeing for themselves what is really going on. Spend some time on, and you will see, for yourself, how the arctic ICE VOLUME appears to be recovering, and has been for the past few years.

  7. […] message. Well done Ballen. I suppose you support a journalist that quotes a fictitious person. New Lows: Sea Ice and ?Steven Goddard? credibility | Climate Denial Crock of the Week Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic and guest author at the climate change skeptic […]

  8. Edd Hoffman Says:

    Julienne described autism correctly so
    being “lost” in Goddard’s case he is lost or fabricating and is probably working for Newscorp
    You know the “Autistic News” they are LOST when it comes to telling the truth.
    Hurricane prediction is totally Fake a HOAX the NASA photos all Photoshoped even the aftermath Sandy for instance, Christie did it all in DreamWorks Studios!!!
    So the Spin Masters need to eat too.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: