Fox News reports on James M. Taylor’s presentation at Heartland’s Conference:

James M. Taylor, an environmental policy expert and a fellow at the Heartland Institute, said that global cooling is already happening. Based on figures provided by the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, he noted that snow records from the last 10 years exceeded the records set in the 1960s and 1970s.

A sign of global cooling? This past “decade set a record for largest average global snow extent,” Taylor said.

I’ve redrawn the the figure from the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab with a trend line so that you can see how Taylor is hiding the decline in snow cover:

i-37eae065e2fe1ee4758c0c968e925d42-nhsnowcover.png

Update: Over at Only In It For The Gold, Taylor attempts to justify his claim by pointing to a Steve Goddard cherry pick at WUWT. Goddard showed statistics for winter only and failed to mention what was happening to snow cover in spring and summer. In winter snow cover has not fallen significantly, but that’s because increased temperatures, while melting snow, also cause more evaporation and hence more snow to fall.

i-bbabb2d2ba46385826fa35e9f986a0a5-nhwintersnow.png

But here’s the bit that Goddard didn’t mention and Taylor was apparently unaware of. Spring and summer snow cover has fallen significantly:

i-bff666884597bd366d44e18b74bde8b1-nhspringsnow.png

i-6a5374d60a4de57efd76df4148d9da53-nhsummersnow.png

Taylor’s statement was wrong. Will he correct it?

Comments

  1. #1 Steve Reuland
    May 22, 2010

    I’m surprised he didn’t say that snow cover increased 13% between 1991 and 2004. That’s the way the fraud is supposed to work. We’re going to have to confiscate this guy’s Denier Card.

    BTW, links to Rutgers aren’t working for me.

  2. #2 sod
    May 22, 2010

    an error in one of the Heartland conference presentations?

    how could that happen?

    what did the auditors do?

  3. #3 Neven
    May 22, 2010

    Apparently, despite the PR success of Climategate, the auditors still need their denialist allies. Will they ever dissociate themselves?

  4. #4 carrot eater
    May 22, 2010

    Maybe he was looking at some particular month in the middle of winter, in some particular region? Tim is plotting the annual NH average.

  5. #5 Paul Middents
    May 22, 2010

    Re #1. Taylor is saying it over at Tobis’ place:

    http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/05/scientist-sneaks-science-into-heartland.html

    Paul

  6. #6 Former Skeptic
    May 22, 2010

    Ah. This was from the James M. Taylor who is currently on full Girma/Brent/Dave Andrews mode over at mt’s?

    I love it when a lawyer says “you are getting creamed in the court of public opinion.” Best admission of defeat ever.

    Taylor’s behavior at mt’s a perfect illustration of the old adage:

    When ya’ have the facts, pound the facts. When ya’ have the law, pound the law. When ya’ have jackshit, pound the table.

  7. #7 JamesA
    May 22, 2010

    I don’t know what’s more depressing. The sheer nonsense Heartland are coming out with in their desperate quest to pollute the world with their anti-science, or the sheer credulousness of Faux News’ reporting on the matter.

    I wouldn’t like to speculate on how many lives Heartland’s bullshit has cost through their delaying things like anti-smoking legislation and I hate the thought that they’re still at it. I’d like to see them audited for a change.

    Links aren’t working for me either.

  8. #8 Lionel A Smith
    May 22, 2010

    Re #5 and ‘Taylor is saying it over at Tobis’ place’

    Amazing!

    Taylor accuses others of ad hominem attacks (how predictable), links to WUWT and departs (or does he, we shall see).

    Does he really expect us to take him seriously?

    These delayers should find out just what an ad hominem attack is. It is not calling out those discredited by association with fossil dirt money who use flawed arguments often lacking any vestige of sound science, sounding like science is not the same thing at all.

  9. #9 Tim Lambert
    May 22, 2010

    See update for explanation of the Taylor/Goddard’s cherry pick.

  10. #10 Scott A. Mandia
    May 22, 2010

    Each of the past four decades has been hotter than the decade before and each of these has set a new record in the instrumental record and quite likely in the past 2,000 years. Surface records and satellite records all agree that there has been warming in the past three decades. For this year so far, Jan-Apr has been the hottest on record and yet there was significant winter NH snow cover.

    So it appears that Taylor is shooting himself in the snow shoe. Warmer temperatures are allowing more winter time snowfall which is expected in a warmer world. Keep these pro-AGW plots coming Mr. Taylor.

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences,
    Selden, NY

    My Global Warming Blog

    Twitter: AGW_Prof

    “Global Warming Fact of the Day” Facebook Group

  11. #11 Marco
    May 22, 2010

    Taylor correcting anything?? At IIFTG he even had the audacity to link to Watts’ long debunked study on US temperatures. So don’t even think he ever will.

  12. #12 bill
    May 22, 2010

    he should stick to his guitar…

  13. #13 Dappledwater
    May 22, 2010

    Yeah, I actually like a few of his songs.

  14. #14 dan satterfield
    May 22, 2010

    Are they just making things up to toss out, or are they really that deluded?

    Seriously, I am really wondering about this. (i.e. They know they are wrong but they do it anyhow or are they just ignorant of the basic science to the point they really believe what they are saying?)

  15. #15 MapleLeaf
    May 22, 2010

    Does Taylor not realise that Tamino refuted Goddard’s nonsensical climas about trends in NH snow extent? He really is making a fool of himself….

  16. #16 JamesA
    May 22, 2010

    @14: The vast majority of deniers are genuinely ignorant of the science, but for a big subset of the rest, I put it down to cognitive dissonance rather than deliberately lying. Consciously or subconsciously, I think they’re putting their thinking skills on hold to avoid the terrifying concept that the science might actually be right.

  17. #17 dhogaza
    May 23, 2010

    People, they don’t care. They just don’t care. Whatever the long-term consequences, they’re so convinced that libertarian principles (freedom to fuck your neighbor) are morally superior to any other value system that they can’t see that “your neighbor” might be “yourself” when it comes to atmosphere, rivers, etc.

  18. #18 Steve L
    May 23, 2010

    How about autumn snow cover?

  19. #19 Dibble
    May 23, 2010

    dhogaza.
    Well put. If anyone wants confirmation, then have a look at the Heartland Institute website and listen to Delingpoles presentation.
    He’s dining out on a politcal ideology that ignores the consequences of rapid climate change. In a ‘war’ that’s purely about their notion of ‘liberty’, they’ve targeted science as the first casulty.
    His very presence on a pseudo scientific platform speaks volumes about the real goals of the PR campaign fought by this advocacy group.
    As they keep reminding, the ‘court of public opinion’ is where the main battle is being waged regardless of the science and it’s where they wheel out their usual professional celebrities to perform with their smoke and mirrors. This is no more than a political public relations exercize for the willfully ignorant.

  20. #20 Alan
    May 23, 2010

    Let’s see those graphs plotted again, this time with the vertical axis starting a 0.

  21. #21 toby
    May 23, 2010

    I dip into WUWT regularly, and I keep thinking each time I do: How long is this going to go on?

    It seems that sites and “denialists” are focued on shorter and shorter timescales and more and more trivial objections to points of climate science e.g. the differences between GISS and HADCRUT.

    But it seems they intend to go on forever if necessary.

  22. #22 Dappledwater
    May 23, 2010

    Alan, stand up, take a few paces backwards. Done.

  23. #23 jakerman
    May 23, 2010

    >Let’s see those graphs plotted again, this time with the vertical axis starting a 0.

    Alan will be back with more tips on how to hide the decline!

  24. #24 Shub Niggurath
    May 23, 2010

    Arctic sea ice extent for spring has fallen the whole of 2 anomaly points. Pretty impressive. ;)

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

    Tim,
    You use words like ‘significant’. I wonder if you are using it in the lay sense or in a statistical sense.

  25. #26 Dappledwater
    May 23, 2010

    Alan, trick no.2 to hide the decline, rotate screen 50 degrees anti clockwise. Better?.

  26. #27 Steve Goddard
    May 23, 2010

    It should be obvious that snow falls in the winter, not the summer. To describe a summer as being “snowy” is nonsense.

    NH winter snow extent is controlled by how far south snow falls (indicating colder winter temperatures) and summer snow extent is controlled by how far north it melts. The mechanisms are largely unrelated. Hansen and others say that the changes in summer snow cover are largely due to soot.

    What you have failed to note is that changes in summer extent occurred in a one time shift in the 1980s That was most likely due to changes in ocean circulation, not CO2. You are misleading your readers by drawing a linear trend line through a step function.

    You should withdraw your post, as it is highly misleading.

  27. #28 frank
    May 23, 2010

    Alan can cancel the global financial crisis with one stroke of a pen.

  28. #29 frank
    May 23, 2010

    Shorter Steve Goddard:

    Snow cover is not declining. Also, snow cover is declining, but it’s not due to global warming. It’s most likely due to soot. And it’s most likely due to ocean circulation. Argh! Just say that global warming is a hoax!

  29. #30 Robert Murphy
    May 23, 2010

    “It should be obvious that snow falls in the winter, not the summer. To describe a summer as being “snowy” is nonsense.”

    Unless *all* the snow in the NH melts during the summer months, it’s simply incorrect to not include summer snow cover. Remember, the issue is snow cover, not snow fall.

  30. #31 jakerman
    May 23, 2010

    Steve Goddard writes:

    >What you have failed to note is that changes in summer extent occurred in a one time shift in the 1980s.

    Evidence Steve?

    >That was most likely due to changes in ocean circulation, not CO2.

    Evidence Steve?

  31. #32 Dappledwater
    May 23, 2010

    So according to Steve Goddard snow cover data from Rutgers for summer is good, but the “snowy” cover data for spring and summer from Rutgers is nonsense. That about right?.

    Oh, and any reduction in “snowy” cover can be attributed to anything, but not global warming. Got it.

  32. #33 jakerman
    May 23, 2010

    Steven Goddard writes:

    >You are misleading your readers by drawing a linear trend line through a step function. You should withdraw your post, as it is highly misleading.

    Steven how did you create [this line](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/winter_snow_extent_1967-2010.png) in your chart?

    < http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/winter_snow_extent_1967-2010.png>

  33. #34 jakerman
    May 23, 2010

    Oh I get it its not a trend. Cos the trend is down.

    BTW are you aware that your post is titled with this false claim, “2001-2010 was the Snowiest Decade on Record”

    Have you asked Watts to correct this misleading title?

  34. #35 Steve Goddard
    May 23, 2010

    jakerman

    You are trying to change the subject, but to answer your question, the yellow line is the mean, not a trend line.

    It should be obvious to anyone familiar with English that the word “snowiest” relates to the amount of snow falling, which occurs in the winter. Summers can not be described as “snowy” because there isn’t much or any snow falling.

  35. #36 Steve Goddard
    May 23, 2010

    This past October-March was the snowiest in the Rutgers record.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/13/october-through-march-was-the-snowiest-on-record-in-the-northern-hemisphere/

    Every single GCM incorrectly forecast decreasing winter extent. But none of you appear interested in discussing actual science, so I am wasting my time talking with this group of religious zealots.

  36. #37 jakerman
    May 23, 2010

    Steve that is a stupid rationalistion. Your evidence is not on snow fall. It is area of snow.

    Says a lot that you would make that dud justification of that misleading heading.

  37. #38 Dappledwater
    May 23, 2010

    “Summers can not be described as “snowy” because there isn’t much or any snow falling.” – Steve Goddard.

    Yeah, I’m sure Rutgers doesn’t describe it as “snowy” either, just as snow cover. Is the graph supposed to show snow cover, snow extent or snowfall?. You seem confused.

  38. #39 jakerman
    May 23, 2010

    >It should be obvious to anyone familiar with English that the word “snowiest” relates to the amount of snow falling, which occurs in the winter. Summers can not be described as “snowy” because there isn’t much or any snow falling.

    Steve that is a stupid rationalistion. Your metric is not on snow fall. It is area of snow.

    You are running away from the science Steve. Try sticking to the metrics you base your analysis on.

  39. #40 Hammiesink
    May 23, 2010

    Steve Goddard,

    This is what I’d like to know: what is the point of trying to show that snow is increasing? I mean, temperatures are clearly increasing as measured by surface and satellites, right? So by trying to show an increase in snow are you trying to say that temperatures are not increasing?

    It doesn’t even make sense. What exactly is your argument in logical form?

  40. #41 jakerman
    May 23, 2010

    And [here is](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dec-feb_snow_ext.png) Steven:

    >*misleading [his] readers by drawing a linear trend line through a step function. [Steven] should withdraw [his] post, as it is highly misleading.*

    And Steven we’re [still waiting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli.php#comment-2536866) your your evidence to back your claims. You not how people interested in science like to see evidence?

    BTW did you [mean to imply](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli.php#comment-2536901) that it only snows in winter?

  41. #42 Boris
    May 23, 2010

    Given that Taylor never corrected the fabricated quotation he used in a Chicago Tribune Op-ed back in 2007, I would be surprised if he corrected this mistake.

  42. #43 Ian Forrester
    May 23, 2010

    Steve Goddard said:

    But none of you appear interested in discussing actual science, so I am wasting my time talking with this group of religious zealots.

    So says some one who had no idea what science really is. For starters, he only refers to junk found in wattsuphisbutt (SG, Watt does not do science).

    SG also deliberately confuses various scientific terms. That is PR, obfuscation and scientific malfeasance.

    In other words, Steve Goddard is willfully dishonest.

  43. #44 Lotharsson
    May 23, 2010

    > To describe a summer as being “snowy” is nonsense…

    …or might be **if someone here had done that**. They talked about the measurements of **snow cover** in summer.

    > …changes in summer extent occurred in a one time shift in the 1980s…

    Looks kind of like a trend crossing a baseline to me. But then eyeballs are notoriously deceptive regarding statistics. How about you tell us why you think this graph demonstrates a “step change” as opposed to a “trend crossing a baseline”?

  44. #45 dhogaza
    May 23, 2010

    So says some one who had no idea what science really is. For starters, he only refers to junk found in wattsuphisbutt

    That’s because the junk he quotes is from his own posts there.

    In other words, Steve Goddard is willfully dishonest.

    That’s why Watts lets him post there …

  45. #46 sod
    May 23, 2010

    Goddard is even more dishonest than he usually is.

    we had some mountain snow last week. and this is middle europe in middle may!

    snow cover is snow cover. his defence of a misleading cherrypick is completely insane.

    we will all sit and wait for his evidence for a “step change”. (this is becoming pretty popular with denialists…)

  46. #47 Neven
    May 23, 2010

    Steven Goddard has been shown to be wrong on a number of occasions. Has anyone here ever seen him admit he was wrong about anything?

    At least Steve has the balls to predict this year’s minimum Arctic sea ice extent will be 500.000 km2 above last year’s (which was 5.25 million square km). I hope he’s wrong just to see if he’ll admit it. It would be much better all in all if he were right, of course.

    I really want Steven Goddard to be right, but unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. WUWT = We Use Wishful Thinking.

  47. #48 sod
    May 23, 2010

    NH winter snow extent is controlled by how far south snow falls (indicating colder winter temperatures)

    those colder winters are a myth, of course.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.lrg.gif

    and:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/seas_cycle.html

    you still haven t figured out, that snow and rain have some connection to evaporation, eh?

  48. #49 jakerman
    May 23, 2010

    Steven you “article” [on models](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/19/north-america-snow-models-miss-the-mark/) need some clarification. For example its not clear with you derive this claims from:

    >Some of the models predicted a significant decline in winter snow cover between 1990 and 2010.

    1) How do you support his claim and 2) what level of “signficance” are you claiming was predicted in the snow cover change from 1990 to 2010? 3) How many of the nine moleds made this prediciton of a “significant decline in winter snow cover between 1990 and 2010.”

  49. #50 GFW
    May 23, 2010

    Even allowing the winter-only cherry-pick, there are discrepancies between the line graph of winter snow extent that Tim shows and the bar graph of winter snow extent that was shown (presumably by Goddard) over at WUWT. In the bar graph there are 3 winters in the 2000s that clearly exceed the 2nd highest winter in the 1970s. But in the line graph, the 2 highest winters in the 2000s are basically in a dead heat with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th highest winters in the 1970s.

    Of course the winter-only cherry-pick is the least important from the point of view of climate feedbacks. Two words: “albedo feedback”. The most important time period is the 4 (maybe 6) months centered on the June solstice.

  50. #51 Zeke
    May 23, 2010

    I’m sorry, but Steve Goddard’s assertion that “every single GCM incorrectly forecast decreasing winter extent” gets a big [citation needed]. Work done so far comparing actual model projections to observations suggests that trends aren’t outside the range of expected outcomes.

    See http://treesfortheforest.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/north-american-snow-cover/ for a thorough analysis, and http://treesfortheforest.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/snc-20c3m-a1b-trends.png for a trend/model comparison across all model runs.

    Similarly, I did my own analysis awhile back comparing model projections to observations: http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/SnowCover1967-2010band-1.png

  51. #52 Steve Goddard
    May 23, 2010

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    Ten years ago….

    Monday, 20 March 2000
    According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.

  52. #53 Steve Goddard
    May 23, 2010

    All numbers were taken directly off the Rutgers web site. If you believe any of my math, numbers or graphs are incorrect, then prove it. Otherwise you are just engaging in the standard ad hominem approach which the CAGW religion is based on.

    This discussion is lame beyond comprehension. Go tell your first grader that you used to have “very snowy summers” when you were a kid. He/she will correctly think that you are an idiot.

  53. #54 Neven
    May 23, 2010

    With that last argument Steve Goddard wins the debate! Steven ‘Galileo’ Goddard, what a genius!

  54. #55 J Bowers
    May 23, 2010

    Steve Goddard: “Otherwise you are just engaging in the standard ad hominem approach which the CAGW religion is based on.”

    Quid pro quo?

    By the way, you just shot any chance of being regarded as impartial down in flames.

  55. #56 Neven
    May 23, 2010

    BTW, I was referring to the brilliant ’10 years ago’ argument.

  56. #57 Veritas odium paret
    May 23, 2010

    Steve Goddard: “Otherwise you are just engaging in the standard ad hominem approach which the CAGW religion is based on.”

    So true, so true! ;)

  57. #58 dhogaza
    May 23, 2010

    By the way, you just shot any chance of being regarded as impartial down in flames.

    Oh, he’s done that multiple times at WUWT, not to mention any chance of display triple-digit IQ.

    Steven Goddard. Just a D**K exhibiting D-K on steroids…

  58. #59 Jim Eager
    May 23, 2010

    You can tell when an anti-physical reality Dunning-Kruger poster child like Goddard is out of ammunition:

    They play the CAGW religion card.

  59. #60 MapleLeaf
    May 23, 2010

    How does a glacial start Steve Goddard? With increasing summer snow cover in the N. Hemisphere.

    No you are your ideologue friends at WFUWT are claiming that we have already started heading into a prolonged period of global cooling, some claim a glacial. Well, the data do not support that nonsense, and you know it, yet you continue to distort and lie and move the goal posts. All the while having the audacity and gaul to accuse real scientists of distorting and lying.

    I compiled, in an earlier post, a list of contrarians who have distorted and/or made serious errors which have called their findings into question. Your name was on that list, and that was before you came here with more deception. Are you genuinely ignorant of the science or do you choose to blatantly distort and lie?

    As for we scientists being zealots, actually you, Steve Goddard, are the true zealot here, and your comments made in a public forum will come back to haunt you. I just hope that you live long enough to be forced to eat your words over and over again.

  60. #61 TrueSceptic
    May 23, 2010

    26 Goddard,

    But none of you appear interested in discussing actual science, so I am wasting my time talking with this group of religious zealots.

    This is hilarious coming from a regular at WUWT, someone who is so arrogant and ignorant that he believes that established science is wrong about thermodynamics and he is right. Just who do think you are?

  61. #62 MapleLeaf
    May 23, 2010

    Zeke @51,

    He shoots he scores!

    Thanks for that Zeke, very interesting.

  62. #63 JamesA
    May 23, 2010

    I love it when D-K denialists like Goddard start digging. The key point he’s failed to address is that he’s being super-selective over which features in which trends are and aren’t meaningful but can present no scientific justification for his logic beyond “because I said so”.

    But besides that, I don’t see what his thesis is. If he’s trying to imply that this is an indicator that the world is cooling down, then that is nonsensical; there are plenty of actual temperature measurements to say that it isn’t, so that just tells you that snow cover isn’t an accurate proxy for global temperature on these timescales. His claims to have invalidated GCMs similarly don’t wash because snow cover is hardly a key indicator of model performance, especially not when he’s seemingly basing his argument on one season’s data and a ten-year-old quote.

    So it inevitably descends into the predictable name-calling, accusations of religious thinking, shouts of ‘ad hom’ and the classic “you’re obviously not clever enough to understand”. Yeah, real scientific.

  63. #65 TrueSceptic
    May 23, 2010

    52 Goddard,

    Is that stupidity or dishonesty? They are talking about the UK. Yes, we had an unusually cold and snowy winter this time, but snowless winters have become increasing common here since the 1980s.

  64. #66 TrueSceptic
    May 23, 2010

    48 sod,

    Should we ask him at what temperature you get maximum snowfall? Would it be an utter waste of time?

  65. #67 TrueSceptic
    May 23, 2010

    53 Goddard,

    You are an arrogant moron. The persistence of snow into the spring (and summer in colder climates and at higher altitudes) is something that only exists in the world of AGW “believers”, is it?

    Please go away and learn something…anything, really, couldn’t fail to be an improvement.

  66. #68 TrueSceptic
    May 23, 2010

    64 luminous,

    Actually, I’d say liar, although you’d also have to be an idiot or highly delusional to imagine you could get away with such shameless dishonesty.

  67. #69 J Bowers
    May 23, 2010

    52 Steve Goddard: “Monday, 20 March 2000 According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “

    And in the rest of that year 2000 article you linked to, he goes on to say (yes everyone, you roughly know what’s coming)…

    “Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.”

    Hmm, it certainly caused chaos here last winter, and within only half the time. Was he therefore half right or twice as right?

  68. #70 dhogaza
    May 23, 2010

    Oh, most certainly a liar …

    His latest spin on arctic sea ice:

    The Arctic is still running well below freezing, and as a result there just isn’t much happening, except for an odd discrepancy that has developed between NSIDC and NORSEX related to the 2007 minimum extent.

    Ice extent as measured by NSIDC and JAXA is dropping like a stone, and the Cryosphere Today folks show the same in area.

    Of course, Goddard loves NORSEX as it’s a new source which makes it easier to say things like “ice extent has returned to normal” (since they only have a few years of data, it conveniently allows cherry-picking the era of extremely low summer ice extent as “normal”).

    Goddard’s even more dishonest than Watts, and that’s saying a lot.

  69. #71 TrueSceptic
    May 23, 2010

    69 JB,

    Yebbut since when has the UK been the whole world, or even the whole NH? It’s bad enough when Americans pretend that the USA is the whole world but the UK??

  70. #72 caerbannog
    May 23, 2010

    MapleLeaf@62


    Zeke@51

    He shoots he scores!

    I’ll have you know that Goddard has shot and scored here a bunch more times than Zeke has. Oh, wait… those were “own goals”. Nevermind…

  71. #73 TrueSceptic
    May 23, 2010

    70 dhogaza,

    Yes, Arctic ice extent has just reached a [record low for this time of year](http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png). Of course, this is only a point in time; it could easy go back towards the long-term average as we get closer to the minimum extent in September.

  72. #74 MapleLeaf
    May 23, 2010

    TrueSceptic @73,

    I agree, but careful there:

    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png

    The AMSRE data show Arctic ice extent in 2010 to be very close (slightly higher even ) to what it was in 2005 at this time. We are also losing that “easy” ice which grew during that late season cold snap, which was of course very thin when the melt season started.

    The true canary in the coal mine is the stunning loss of ice volume, especially in recent years– things are not looking good down the road. Goddard’s ‘recovery’ is an illusion.

  73. #75 Shub Niggurath
    May 23, 2010

    trueskeptic, dhogaza etc

    Re: post #24

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

  74. #76 J Bowers
    May 23, 2010

    71 TrueSceptic,

    But wasn’t he giving an interview to a UK newspaper in his capacity as a UK scientist at East Anglia?

    The lead paragraph from the Independent article, with a couple of other snippets…

    Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives…
    [...[]
    The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent…
    [...]
    Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up “without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world – open-air skating”.
    [...]
    and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in “London Snow” of it,…”

    There’s a mention of Europe by a Dutch scientist, but I don’t think the world had anything to do with what Viner was talking about, just dear old Blighty. And he seems to have gotten it at least half right so far, unlike a certain regular from Comical Anth’ny’s.

  75. #77 MapleLeaf
    May 23, 2010

    TrueSceptic @73,

    I agree, but careful there:

    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png

    The AMSRE data show Arctic ice extent in 2010 to be very close (slightly higher even ) to what it was in 2005 at this time. We are also losing that “easy” ice which grew during that late season cold snap, which was of course very thin when the melt season started.

    The true canary in the coal mine is the stunning loss of ice volume, especially in recent years– things are not looking good down the road. Goddard’s ‘recovery’ is an illusion.

  76. #78 MapleLeaf
    May 23, 2010

    Perhaps this applies to Goddard et al.?:

    “After 25 years in the university environment and 11 years running a small business dealing with the public, for me the principle of Ockham’s Razor was expressed in “Do not assume malice when an explanation of stupidity is sufficient.”"

  77. #79 Tacroy
    May 23, 2010

    Neven @47:

    At least Steve has the balls to predict this year’s minimum Arctic sea ice extent will be 500.000 km2 above last year’s (which was 5.25 million square km). I hope he’s wrong just to see if he’ll admit it. It would be much better all in all if he were right, of course.

    I bet you that by “minimum” arctic sea ice extent, he means minimum winter arctic sea ice extent, since by his arguments here he doesn’t consider summer ice extent to be a valid measurement because it doesn’t snow in the summer.

    Because that makes sense, apparently.

  78. #80 MapleLeaf
    May 23, 2010

    Thanks Shub @75 for showing that the long-tern trend in April sea ice extent is indeed down. TS and dhogaza were talking about current extent in May, not April, and TS did provide a caveat for his statement.

    Also, see my post @74.

    So shub, how do you feel about Goddard and Taylor and Easterbrook distorting/lying/deceiving? I mean you are highly critical of errors in the IPCC or alleged “misleading” statements therein, so are you going to show yourself to be impartial and condemn the three guilty parties here?

  79. #81 luminous beauty
    May 23, 2010

    A remarkably stupid liar.

    The Polar Center at UW has started a new resource estimating sea ice [volume.](http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php) Worth bookmarking.

  80. #82 dhogaza
    May 23, 2010

    TS and dhogaza were talking about current extent in May, not April, and TS did provide a caveat for his statement.

    I wasn’t attempting to say anything about the future, just pointing out that Goddard’s description of the present is … “interesting”.

  81. #83 TrueSceptic
    May 23, 2010

    74 ML,

    Yes, that’s why I was at pains to point out that it’s just one point in time and lots can happen from now on.

  82. #84 TrueSceptic
    May 23, 2010

    71 JB,

    I fear you are missing the point. Why did Goddard cite something (52) about UK winters on a blog that is Australian-based and discusses climate world-wide? That is the issue, not the quote itself, which we all know is about the UK.

  83. #85 sod
    May 23, 2010

    Goddard is a fraud.

    you will want to take a look at his latest post on WuWt:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/23/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-6/

    The Arctic is still running well below freezing, and as a result there just isn’t much happening, except for an odd discrepancy that has developed between NSIDC and NORSEX related to the 2007 extent. Read on.

    nothing happening, apart from a major drop in sea ice extend and area, and a continous drop in arctic sea ice volume.

    all quiet on the (northern) front!!!

    Melt is proceeding very slowly.

    fastest melt ever? look at the dive in the [AMSR dataset](http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm) over May!

    AMSR is the dataset, that is linked on the sidebar of WuWt. it slightly fell out of use, since it is showing a drop…

    The four major ice extent indices continue to diverge.

    Goddard actually doesn t know what “diverge” means. all four datasets show a steep decline. the single one showing a little less decline from the “recovery2 postulated in countless WuWt posts, is the one dataset that he prefers now! go figure!

  84. #86 Dave Andrews
    May 23, 2010

    Mapleleaf,

    So you have implicit faith in the IPCC and think it acts in a purely scientific way into which global politics do not enter do you?

    Its time you got out a bit more!

  85. #87 Ian Forrester
    May 23, 2010

    As usual Dave (the Idiot) Andrews got things all mixed up. What he mean to say was:

    “So I have implicit faith in the AGW deniers and think they act in a purely scientific way into which global politics do not enter.”

    Why do you you continue to be so dishonest in your posts? What do your friends (assuming you actually have any) and family think of your dishonesty? Keep up the good work, you sure show everyone just how far out of touch with reality you deniers actually are.

  86. #88 J Bowers
    May 23, 2010

    84 TS,

    Gotcha. Still, I hope his cognitive bias or deliberate straw man (assuming, or projecting, a UK based scenario as a global one) is even more obvious now.

  87. #89 MapleLeaf
    May 23, 2010

    Dave Andrews,

    Are you OK with Carter, Easterbrook, Goddard and other contrarians distorting, deceiving and even lying as has been clearly shown here and elsewhere?

    It is a very simple and relevant question Dave; or do you also need your own rubber room like El Gordo?

  88. #90 luminous beauty
    May 23, 2010

    Ducky,

    You’re right. The effect of global politics on the IPCC does influence the science. It has made it more conservative.

  89. #92 Watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com
    May 23, 2010

    This is what I call asymmetric standards of truth.

    The denial movement will happily accuse scientists of playing tricks and engaged in fraud, yet at the same time engage in the very things they accuse the scientific community. Classic role reversal.

    Can we expect a correction?

    I doubt it. Their intention it to fire off memes into the blogosphere to help poison the debate.

  90. #94 jakerman
    May 23, 2010

    BTW, Of the many useful links provided by posters, I find [this one](http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/steve-goddards-snowjob/) quite a handy one.

  91. #95 Lotharsson
    May 23, 2010

    > Go tell your first grader that you used to have “very snowy summers” when you were a kid.

    [This goldfish orbits very fast](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli.php#comment-2536935).

    In a virtuoso display of basic incompetence, Steve Goddard continues to falsely imply that people here have described summers as “snowy”. Go on, try it yourself – you may not know your browser has a handy “Find” or “Search” function that can take you to every occurrence of the word “summer” in the whole webpage.

    And that’s before we note that the description of *summer snow cover* in this post was “declining”, not “snowy” or “increasing” or the like…

  92. #96 Bernard J.
    May 23, 2010

    Sod [commented](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli.php#comment-2536958):

    we will all sit and wait for his evidence for a “step change”. (this is becoming pretty popular with denialists…)

    It’s certainly a meme beloved of David Stockwell and his Climate Sceptics Party mate Anthony Cox (aka cohenite). Apparently if there is not an incremental increase in temperature over a short period of time, then it is not the emissions of CO2 by humans that cause the problem.

    Sounds fine, but anyone who understands complex natural systems, and the relatively fast rate of human CO2 emissions compared with the response time of large natural systems, would not be surprised to see a progression from one [meta-stable state](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability) to a new equilibrium that resembles a ‘step’ rather than an incremental graduation.

    Or, as I suspect hindsight will demonstrate, a hybrid of the two types of progressions.

    And wherever or whenever there is any hint of a step in climate system responses, I suspect that there will always be a denialatus right behind, hooting and slapping the ground and ejaculating that this somehow disproves human-induced global warming.

  93. #97 Dappledwater
    May 23, 2010

    I wonder why Steve Goddard ran away when he got called for bullshit?.

  94. #98 Anarchist606
    May 24, 2010

    My summary of media coverage of denial event-
    International Conference on Climate Change: Many Villages Report Missing Idiots During Event

    http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2010/05/international-conference-on-climate.html

  95. #99 Lurker
    May 24, 2010

    Re: Steven Goddard

    I can’t remember the last time I witnessed someone strip himself of his dignity so willingly.

  96. #100 Ezzthetic
    May 24, 2010

    My summary of media coverage of denial event

    What surprised me was Alex giving positive coverage to Icke. I thought his view was that Icke was working for the Other Side – trying to give conspiracy theorists a bad name.