Deniers: This is what “Recovery” Looks Like
September 18, 2011
Headline from Climate Denial website:
Arctic sea ice extent fell to 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles) on September 9, 2011. This year’s minimum was the second lowest in the satellite record, which started in 1979. The lowest extent was recorded in 2007.
Over the last thirty years, ice extent, a two-dimensional measure of the ice cover on the Arctic Ocean, has declined in all months, with a more pronounced drop in summer. Scientists attribute this decline in large part to climate change.
The graph above is an early preview of my upcoming review of sea ice, where I will underline once again, that the most virulent form of climate denialism is not just ignorance, but evidence of a psychological disorder. ( see today’s video on the tobacco industry)
September 18, 2011 at 6:50 pm
>> “… that the most virulent form of climate denialism is not just ignorance, but evidence of a psychological disorder.”
Have there been studies done that indicate a psychological disorder to the most virulent forms of denial? If it were me, I would say motivated reasoning rather than psychological disorder. Then again, pathological lying might fit the bill, but how can anyone be sure that they are lying?
Anyway, awaiting the upcoming sea ice review.
September 18, 2011 at 8:08 pm
when you’ve had some of these guys lie to your face, you know.
September 18, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Yeah, I suppose. Monckton has Grave’s disease, and I have heard that causes some form of mental issues. That may be a good example, but I don’t know what Grave’s affects.
September 18, 2011 at 10:09 pm
manic, delusional, paranoid fantasies.
September 18, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Sinclair’s losing it. Not that I would be surprised. In the meanwhile there’s plenty more posts, graphs and diagrams at Goddard’s place, and fewer attempts at pop-psychology.
Let’s see if Peter’s got the guts to post and comment about all the Arctic sea ice indicators, not just the one.
September 18, 2011 at 7:23 pm
“The Arctic is gaining ice at the fastest rate on record for early September…” Yeah, for 3 or 4 days. That’s some “real science”. You guys are kicking the straw you’re sucking on out of the bottle.
That “Steven Goddard” blog site is only good for people with brain damage. Does that guy think we cannot read graphs?
September 18, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Goddard’s got his own site and he posts there whatever he wants. There’s no “you guys”.
September 18, 2011 at 7:13 pm
“Real Science” my arse! That “Steven Goddard” is neither a scientist nor is it his real name. Just FRAUD.
September 18, 2011 at 8:36 pm
“Goddard” unconsciously gives himself away with Dorothy and Toto in his header.
September 18, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Funny isn’t it…on the one side plenty of arguments and open discussions, here words like “fraud” and “psychological disorders”. I wonder on which one of those two sides it’s most likely to be found, any trace of science.
Any chance to hear about accelerating sea level rises, since we’re at it?
September 19, 2011 at 2:25 am
Not “ha ha” funny. Sad, really.
Regarding sea level: Here’s the actual, measured, local mean sea level at Sydney, Australia, starting in 1886:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140
I can’t for the life of me spot any acceleration in rate of sea level rise in response to the late 20th century’s big climb in atmospheric CO2. Can you?
September 18, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Some “fast recovery” indeed.
September 19, 2011 at 1:53 am
Charles, that is not a graph of actual measured data. We don’t have any actual measurements of ice volume. The so-called “data” in that graph is computer model-generated, and dubious.
Plus, it has nothing to do with the “recovery” that Steven Goddard was talking about.
The “recovery” that Goddard was talking about was this summer’s Arctic Ice extent recovery, starting in mid-July, relative to same-date numbers in previous years, compared to June 2011. The Spring numbers were quite low for that time of year, setting or coming close to lowest-for-that-day-of-the-year records on some days. But that ceased to be the case in mid-July, and now (two months later) Arctic ice extent is ~360,000 sq-km above 2007 levels (according to NSIDC), or ~550,000 sq-km above 2007 levels (DMI), or ~300,000 sq-km above 2007 levels (Breman), or ~1,000,000 sq-m above 2007 levels (NORSEX).
Steven was presumably reacting to the salivating among CAGW alarmists last June, when 2011 Arctic Sea Ice extent was briefly below 2007 levels.
Of course, Southern Ocean ice is near its historical average, and nowhere near a low:
September 18, 2011 at 7:28 pm
“I wonder on which one of those two sides it’s most likely to be found, any trace of science.”
Look at the trend line. There’s your science.
September 18, 2011 at 7:48 pm
No. There’s no science without a discussion. And throwing insults is not a discussion.
As for the “fast recovery”, anybody familiar with Goddard’s work understands he’s posting wild claims that are just specular to the wild claims read in hundreds of warmist websites. But I suppose irony isn’t exactly a familiar way of thinking, around here.
September 19, 2011 at 12:59 am
Peter, you apparently didn’t understand what Steven Goddard was talking about. The “recovery” in question was this summer compared to the summer of 2007. It wasn’t September-to-September numbers.
(And, Charles, he was talking about Arctic sea ice extent, not volume, the numbers for which are less reliable than those for extent.)
In Spring of this year, the Arctic sea ice extent numbers were very low for that time of year, setting “new low for that day of the year” records on some days. But this summer the Arctic sea ice extent “recovered” to modestly but consistently higher levels than we saw on the same days of the year in 2007. That’s the “recovery” Steven Goddard was talking about.
You can see it easily in this DMI graph:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
The black line is 2011. Notice how from May to mid-July the 2011 Arctic Ice extent numbers hovered near their historical lows. But in mid-July, it began to recover. The DMI graph now shows it over half a million square kilometers above the same-day extent in 2007.
But you misunderstood what he was talking about, and graphed something entirely different, with the insulting title, “Deniers: This is what ‘Recovery’ Looks Like.”
Okay, so you goofed. Hey, everybody makes mistakes. I’ve made worse ones than that. So, how about you just apologize for it, and let’s move on. Okay?
September 19, 2011 at 1:30 am
“There’s no science without a discussion.” The graph is the result of REAL scientists “discussing”. No commenters can add or subtract the findings of those whose lives are spent in the pursuit of understanding reality.
And if irony is what you’re looking for, just keep regurgitating what your oil puppeteers tell you. Then you can suffer along with the rest of us.
September 19, 2011 at 1:56 am
No, Stephen, it’s not. The graph Charles posted is the result of computer model-generated data. It isn’t measured data. There’s nothing “real” about it.
September 19, 2011 at 2:22 am
It is interesting, Peter, that you were able to graph “average monthly” September sea ice extent for 2011 already, with the month barely half over, and the coldest half yet to come.
It never ceases to amaze me all the graphs that AGW alarmists can generate for data that doesn’t really exist — and that people take them seriously.
Here’s some data that does exist: the actual, measured, local mean sea level at Sydney, Australia, starting in 1886:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140
Can you see how it responded to the late 20th century’s big climb in atmospheric CO2?
September 19, 2011 at 10:59 am
good point.
graph is now labeled for clarity.
September 19, 2011 at 6:41 am
Hey daveburton – see you at the Big Secret Oil Puppets Convention, uh. And one wonders why AGW mitigation has been a political failure…