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.
? "piomass0914")
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:
Climate Denial Crock of the Week 
September 26, 2011 at 9:47 am
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.
October 13, 2011 at 12:55 pm
[…] 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 […]
July 26, 2012 at 2:28 pm
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
September 30, 2013 at 6:17 pm
[…] 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 […]
December 20, 2013 at 6:12 pm
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??
December 20, 2013 at 10:50 pm
not aware that sea ice is down.
I rely on actual scientists like lead researcher Ted Scambos of National Snow and Ice Data Center
https://climatecrocks.com/2013/12/17/new-climate-denial-meme-its-cold-in-antarctica-duh/
and the American Geophysical Union’s arctic report card
https://climatecrocks.com/2013/12/18/santa-may-or-may-not-be-white-but-the-arctic-is-increasingly-green/
and other mainstream science resources, rather than anonymous internet sites. That’s my bias, sorry.
https://climatecrocks.com/2013/09/09/another-year-another-sea-ice-recovery/
December 20, 2013 at 11:56 pm
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.
December 21, 2013 at 12:25 am
You do know that ice volume and multi-year ice extent are both up, right?
December 21, 2013 at 12:58 am
“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.
December 21, 2013 at 8:17 am
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.
June 23, 2014 at 12:55 pm
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 psc.apl.washington.edu, and you will see, for yourself, how the arctic ICE VOLUME appears to be recovering, and has been for the past few years.
June 23, 2014 at 3:29 pm
” people aren’t capable of looking at the data and seeing for themselves what is really going on.”
well you’ve certainly proven that point. thanks for that.
btw, clearer graph from the same source – hint, a longer record is always less deceptive.
June 25, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Ah…
So, what you are saying is:
2014 is not showing an ICE VOLUME greater than 2011 levels?
2014 is not showing an ICE VOLUME at about the same levels as 2012 and 2013?
The ICE VOLUME is not in the “standard deviation” as shown in the graph?
Is that your position?
Or is your poor attempt at ad-hominem your normal mode of communication?
Also, please explain how ice volume was recorded and tracked PRIOR to satellites?
When did satellites start tracking ice volume?
What is the ice volume cycle over the past 200 years? The past 150,000 years?
Why do all “averages” only include data from 1979 to today? Did we not have Arctic Ice prior to 1979?
What is “Normal”? More specifically, what is the “normal arctic ice volume”?
That is the real question…
Are you aware the “normal” Global Average Temperature as found in the Geological Record is about 18c?
How much ice was in the arctic during those “warmer times”?
How much ice was in the arctic during “colder times”?
You do know we are in an interglacial period on a warming trend… right?
So… who are you, or any politician, or any “climate scientist” to say what is “normal” IN YOUR OPINIONS, when “normal” is determined by HISTORIC RECORD?
Bring me a larger sampling of data than from 1979 to today, and maybe… just maybe we can see the whole picture, not just one little 25 year slice.
(I found it interesting to see what the Arctic looked like during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s… you should look into it.)
June 25, 2014 at 3:44 pm
and of course, that work has been done
https://climatecrocks.com/2013/04/11/pesky-reality-intrudes-in-denierville-again-danish-ice-maps-from-the-30s/
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/similar-melts-from-1938-43.html
https://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/25/sea-ice-volume-is-not-recovering/
I’d like to say, nice try, but…not.
June 24, 2014 at 6:36 pm
July 3, 2014 at 8:08 pm
Facts here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183/F5.large.jpg
July 4, 2014 at 1:39 am
Some “facts” those are, Sir Charles. The vertical axes aren’t even labeled “per year” to allow meaningful comparisons with total sea-level rise. If those are supposed to be cumulative totals they don’t even pass the laugh test: your error bars for 18 years of uncertain data are no larger than the error bars shown for half that time.
(I’m really mainly posting to check whether I’m still banned here for heresy.)
July 7, 2014 at 8:08 pm
The laugh goes back to you, daveburton. I recommend to take a look at the graph again. Here the peer-reviewed paper it’s from => http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183/F5.expansion.html
June 23, 2014 at 3:24 pm
[…] 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 […]
February 20, 2015 at 2:16 am
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.
LOL