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:
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.
But here's the bit that Goddard didn't mention and Taylor was apparently unaware of. Spring and summer snow cover has fallen significantly:
Taylor's statement was wrong. Will he correct it?
- Log in to post comments
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.
an error in one of the Heartland conference presentations?
how could that happen?
what did the auditors do?
Apparently, despite the PR success of Climategate, the auditors still need their denialist allies. Will they ever dissociate themselves?
Maybe he was looking at some particular month in the middle of winter, in some particular region? Tim is plotting the annual NH average.
Re #1. Taylor is saying it over at Tobis' place:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/05/scientist-sneaks-science-int…
Paul
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.
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.
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.
See update for explanation of the Taylor/Goddard's cherry pick.
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
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.
he should stick to his guitar...
Yeah, I actually like a few of his songs.
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?)
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....
@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.
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.
How about autumn snow cover?
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.
Let's see those graphs plotted again, this time with the vertical axis starting a 0.
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.
Alan, stand up, take a few paces backwards. Done.
>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!
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.
Shub,
But [the trend](http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100504_Figure3.png) is more meaningful than short instances.
And [volume trend](http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/365871main_earth3-20090707-full.jpg) even more so.
Alan, trick no.2 to hide the decline, rotate screen 50 degrees anti clockwise. Better?.
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.
Alan can cancel the global financial crisis with one stroke of a pen.
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!
"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.
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?
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.
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_1…) in your chart?
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?
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.
This past October-March was the snowiest in the Rutgers record.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/13/october-through-march-was-the-sno…
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.
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.
"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.
>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.
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?
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…) 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…) that it only snows in winter?
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.
Steve Goddard said:
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.
> 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"?
That's because the junk he quotes is from his own posts there.
That's why Watts lets him post there ...
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...)
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.
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?
Steven you "article" [on models](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/19/north-america-snow-models-miss-th…) 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."
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.
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-c… for a thorough analysis, and http://treesfortheforest.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/snc-20c3m-a1b-tren… 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-…
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing…
Ten years ago....
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.
With that last argument Steve Goddard wins the debate! Steven 'Galileo' Goddard, what a genius!
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.
BTW, I was referring to the brilliant '10 years ago' argument.
Steve Goddard: "Otherwise you are just engaging in the standard ad hominem approach which the CAGW religion is based on."
So true, so true! ;)
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...
You can tell when an anti-physical reality Dunning-Kruger poster child like Goddard is out of ammunition:
They play the CAGW religion card.
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.
26 Goddard,
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?
Zeke @51,
He shoots he scores!
Thanks for that Zeke, very interesting.
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.
Irrefutable [proof](http://rhinohide.cx/co2/snowjob/img/snowjob-05.png) Steve Goddard is an idiot.
Details [here](http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/steve-goddards-snowjob/) and [here.](http://treesfortheforest.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/north-american-snow-c…)
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.
48 sod,
Should we ask him at what temperature you get maximum snowfall? Would it be an utter waste of time?
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.
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.
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?
Oh, most certainly a liar ...
His latest spin on arctic sea ice:
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 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??
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...
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_timeser…). 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.
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.
trueskeptic, dhogaza etc
Re: post #24
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
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.
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.
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.""
Neven @47:
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.
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?
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.
I wasn't attempting to say anything about the future, just pointing out that Goddard's description of the present is ... "interesting".
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.
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.
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 isnât 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!
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!
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.
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.
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?
Ducky,
You're right. The effect of global politics on the IPCC does influence the science. It has made it more conservative.
Steven, I'm [still waiting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli…) for Goddard to answer some [simple questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli…).
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.
BTW thanks to Zeke et al [for answering](http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/SnowCover1967-2010band-…) one [set of of the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli…) for Goddard.
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.
> 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…).
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...
Sod [commented](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli…):
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.
I wonder why Steve Goddard ran away when he got called for bullshit?.
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-cl…
Re: Steven Goddard
I can't remember the last time I witnessed someone strip himself of his dignity so willingly.
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.
Maple Leaf,
I think Dave boys' post to you at @86 was a deliberate push back to your challenge to Shub @ 80, to try and put you off course. I guess these posts about sea ice must be making Dave boy etc feel v.uncomfortable and of course we haven't heard back from Shub yet. Truth hurts and sometimes the only way you can ignore it existentially is by shaking your fist at it in impotence.
Well, you people must have really triggered something in Steven Goddard, because he just went overboard with some graph cooking that deserves a Michelin star.
102 Neven,
Oh, boy! He's done a G@rm@, hasn't he?
Good to know that graphs can be scary or comforting.
As I mentioned before, there is visual magnification in the anomaly graphs and they are scary. When I first saw it, I was uneasy about global warming. However, when I plotted, for myself, the true mean global temperatures I found them to be nearly flat and found them comforting.
I got really sick some time ago and was running a fever of almost 103 F.
So I plotted my temperature relative to absolute zero and saw that my fever wasn't that bad after all. Saved a 100 dollar emergency room insurance co-payment that way!
102 Neven,
He's not getting away with it, though. Have a read of Wren's posts.
Well, at least they're admitting that Arctic sea ice is retreating. But maybe it's just because a tennis court or barbecue grill are located too close.
Steven Goddard writes:
"Every single GCM incorrectly forecast decreasing winter extent."
Over the entire 21st century, that is correct. There's greater variability at the decadal level (hint: the AO index plays a role). Over the 20th century, it's incorrect. Leaving these facts out is entirely dishonest, and typical of Goddard and the denier movement.
http://www.eee.columbia.edu/research-projects/water_resources/climate-c…
"Most models do not exhibit a 20th-century trend, and significant between-model variability is apparent, with most models underestimating the observed NA-SCE over the 20th century. This exemplifies the considerable uncertainties that still plague GCM simulations. Nevertheless, all nine models exhibit a clear and statistically significant decreasing trend in 21st century NA-SCE, although the magnitude of the trend varies between models. "
Goddard quotes an article from 10 years ago. Here's some more...
"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.
Sounds pretty prophetic:
"Heavy snow and icy roads are causing chaos across most of the UK"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8440601.stm
What's funny about the clownish Goddard is that whenever he seems to focus on some short-term anomaly (red meat for the denier cult), the opposite often happens within a short period of time. He then moves on to the next bit of nonsense, such as claiming Venus heat isn't due to the greenhouse effect.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/05/very-dry-very-adiabatic-lapse-rate.h…
Snow cover extent:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/08/noaa-rutgers-snow-lab-north-ameri…
Arctic sea ice extent:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeser…
Jeremy @ 101,
Thanks. I figured as much, but it is nice to see that someone else recognized what they were trying to do.
Neven @102,
I took a deep breath and followed your link. Oh boy, Goddard just does not know when to stop. Is he throwing himself under the bus here to protect Taylor and Easterbrook?
From his post at WUWT, Goddard is predicting the Arctic to be ice free by 2065. So Goddard is not only conceding that the Arctic will soon be ice free in September, he is also implicitly agreeing that the IPCC predictions for the timing of min. ice extent were too conservative.
Goddard also makes predictions for other months of the year which is pointless and irrelevant. Not sure which data he used to generate the trend lines, which he then incorrectly simply extrapolated outwards in time. If that is not bad enough he is assuming that the Arctic sea ice decline will respond linearly with time. The gist of his post seems to be that "no worries, it is not that bad, and besides, it is not something that we baby boomers have to worry about, we'll just defer the consequences and costs to future generations". Goddard, "'Me, me, me..." [from the Matrix].
Anyhow, let it be widely noted that Goddard is predicting an ice free Arctic Ocean circa 2065, sooner than the 'alarmist' IPCC estimates.
luminous beauty,
"You're right. The effect of global politics on the IPCC does influence the science. It has made it more conservative."
'Your brightness', it is a pity your name does not live up to the illumination you think it does.
So you are now accusing all those scientists who have participated in the IPCC process of conservatism are you?
Jeremy C,
I'm not particularly bothered by the reports about Arctic ice extent because, guess what it changes all the time and in the early 1600s it was not as extensive as it was in the mid 1700s (LIA, for a clue).
More recently the first single handed east west crossing of the North West passage was made in 1977. This was at a time, of course, when the doomsayers were telling us to fear the coming ice age!
Note that Anthony Watts is listed as co-author, so now we have both of them on record as stating that IPCC predictions for when we might see ice-free summers in the arctic are, as you say, too conservative.
They're so clueless that they don't seem to understand what they've done, though it was pointed out in the comments there. They're hung up on one quote that the arctic might be ice free "as soon as" 2013 (which Goddard misrepresents as being a claim that the arctic WILL BE free of ice that soon) and missing the fact that this is far from the consensus position taken by those evil alarmists the IPCC.
They're eviler alarmists and aren't even aware of it! :)
Dave @113 "when the doomsayers were telling us to fear the coming ice age!"
How you do like to lie Andrews. Seriously, I think you need help b/c you have shown yourself to be a compulsive liar. Do you lie to your friends and family in this way, do you distort the truth/reality with them too?
You still have not answered my question, so I'll assume that you are OK with deceit and lies of the contrarians.
Bye, bye.
The process is conservative regarding the science, which says nothing of the individual scientists political beliefs.
But Dave Andrews suffers comprehension problems and from weak ethics (aw, shucks, he's a lying fucktard, actually), so we're used to this stuff, aren't we, folks?
> So I plotted my temperature relative to absolute zero and saw that my fever wasn't that bad after all.
you were right to do that. using the celcius scale is dangerous. it was invented in sweden, a land famous for its socialist tendencies. and do you know what else they invented in sweden? that's right, the _nobel prize_, as given to alhambra "fatty" gore and his comrades at the IP"CC".
> Saved a 100 dollar emergency room insurance co-payment that way!
oh, so you're one of those nazi communists, are you? why do you hate private healthcare so much?
sorry, my post was of course quoting caerbannog. good american name that. invented by people who [really hated communism](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju3h7yk4Hcg) with every patriotic fibre of their bodies.
Dave, you are aware that the fallacy of "the scientists were all saying we were heading for an ice age" has been extensively covered previously, are you not?
I went through this the other day with someone who decided to offer the old "70s global cooling" chestnut, but at least he shutup about it after I gave him the AMS reference, to his credit. I think he was genuinely surprised at his unintentional ignorance.
I'm not so certain that yours is unintentional though.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
You know, Dave, I don't often find your style of Poe-comedy effective, but you really got me this time. You bring to mind a quote from Chris Guest in the commentary on Best In Show: "[Dave] has the patent on characters who are comfortable in their stupidity."
109,
Dave Andrews, are you impervious to irony?
113 Andrews,
Please just f@@k off. Your lies have lost even any entertainment value. All we have left is boring stupidity.
And so ligne invokes Godwin, all the while missing the point about graph scaling and the import of the variance of a trajectory over time.
The fellow doesn't need to buy a clue; he needs to subscribe to a weekly home-delivery service.
I note that Goddard joins Jen Marohasy, Jo Codling/Nova, Girma Orrsengo, and many others in taking up the canard about the "scariness" disappearing if the "correct" scale is used for the ordinate.
May I be so bold as to propose that we formulate a law that describes this emerging phenomenon? Something like "the probability of a scientific illiterate irrevocably revealing their cluelessness (and their abject inability to comment on anything remotely associated with climate change) by claiming that the y-axis of any graph should be scaled from absolute zero, approaches 1 as all their other attempts to misrepresent the science is dismissed".
But with less words and a better flow... ;-)
@103 TrueSceptic,
Is he seriously just complaining that as the anomalies are plotted instead of absolute temperatures, he was "scared" (concern troll much?).
I'm sorry, but if these clowns can't read a bleeding y-axis and put it into perspective themselves it's yet another reason they have absolutely no place trying to discuss climate science.
122 Bernard,
Please. Ligne is being ironic.
This is a real problem, though: we're becoming so used to Poe candidates that we are...dunno...Poe'd out? Poe-insensitive?
> The fellow doesn't need to buy a clue; he needs to subscribe to a weekly home-delivery service.
Damn - is there a term for thinking someone is a Poe, who actually isn't?
> ...by claiming that the y-axis of any graph should be scaled from absolute zero...
Actually, if Goddard is quoted correctly [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli…) he **doesn't even get that right**. He implies his zero is an arbitrarily chosen "zero Celsius", instead of either absolute zero - which probably would have got him laughed out of town in a second - or the blackbody temperature of the earth (the temperature it would be at without the greenhouse effect) - which probably would be opening himself up to questions about the science of the greenhouse effect.
Bernard J: it's ok, i wasn't being serious :-) i thought i was being sufficiently over the top, but having re-read goddard's comments in this thread, i now see i'll have to try harder if i want to top those pinnacles of arsedribble.
> claiming that the y-axis of any graph should be scaled from absolute zero
natch. also, all graphs should also scale the x-axis from the start of the universe, so as not to confuse everyone's widdle eyes and minds with evil graphical lies.
124 FJM,
You need to read the [G@rm@ thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…)...if you've got time to kill as there are 2000+ comments.
I hereby nominate Dave Andrews to have his own rubber room here at Deltoid. Dr. Lambert, what do you think?
Ligne, I actually think your earlier post is not just a Poe, but forms a very pleasing Podwin.
Ligne.
Oopsies, my big big bad!
I should have listened to the bell in the back of my mind that was warning that I had miscategorised you. I'm in the middle of drying two wet children, but bath-time should not have addled my brains.
I apologise unreservedly!
[Insert humiliated emoticon here]
Stu.
I was indeed Podwinned!
I stand behind my comment though, that we should formulate a law to join Poe, Godwin, (Podwin?), and others that describe Interweb phenomena. This weirdness with ordinate scales is one that definitely deserves to be derided with a formal acknowledgment of its idiocy.
And ligne, I repeat my apology. I should have checked before I jumped the gun.
My remorse is complete: I wasted a perfectly good metaphor in the process of my having been Podwinned.
[Sigh...]
TS @103,
At first I thought you were quoting Goddard and that the stupid-o-meter would explode if pointed within roughly 90 degrees of him, but then I realised you were quoting Girma. Yes, the similarities are very evident, but I didn't get that it wasn't Goddard at first! Looks like Lotharsson made that mistake too.
That fact notwithstanding, I can see it as very likely that Goddard (or another WTFer) would have a problem with anomalies over absolutes, can anyone link me up? I recall Watts' dunderheaded histogram/baseline post, so given the level of stupidity it isn't implausible that the temperature record has been given the same dodgy treatment as the sea ice record. In short, has WUWT ever done a Girma on the temperature record?
PS. Bernard, perhaps 'doing a Girma' (subsitute Marohasy, Nova etc at will) can fill the missing geek speak @123?
The scaling of temperature to absolute zero is a well established blog science technique.
Nothing wrong with that.
Wait, did my comment go into moderation because I mentioned G1rm@? I thought TS was just being cute!
Anyway, to avoid confusion, TS your post @103 suggested that the quoted abject stupidity was from Goddard. I thought so at first, and evidently so did Lotharsson @126, but it's from G1rm@ isn't it? As my post currenly in moderation says, the resemblance is rather striking.
Damn! here is the correct link.
> Looks like Lotharsson made that mistake too.
Yep.
> This weirdness with ordinate scales is one that definitely deserves to be derided with a formal acknowledgment of its idiocy.
I think the fundamental pathology is the assumption that the **presentation** of data or conclusions is what makes it concerning, rather than the **likely outcomes themselves**. IIRC Brent used to run that line every now and then on the never-ending Empirical Evidence thread.
And the flip-side - and all too often the cynical exploit of the pathology - is that for the scientifically less literate, minimising the presented numbers/graph wiggles combined with appropriate spin can easily persuade people that the magnitude of concern should be tiny. (e.g. Consider the favourite deniosaurist lines that "CO2 is just a trace gas" and "it's only 0.0378% of the atmosphere".)
"Damn - is there a term for thinking someone is a Poe, who actually isn't?" - Lotharsson.
Poe-laxed?
A person pretending to be one - faux poe?.
@138
I while back on an unrelated forum I had to endure that argument from several badly misinformed people.
I suggested that they should each have no trouble ingesting the minimum lethal dose of ricin toxin, as the maths shows it is only a miniscule percentage of their bodyweight (way way less than 0.0378%) and therefore, by the argument that tiny proportions of something can't affect large systems, they would remain in the best of health.
The argument, to my surprise, was somewhat successful in illustrating the silliness of their position and they moved onto other things. The site admin thought it was actually quite a clever point (though I just thought it was plain commonsense that you can't make such grand sweeping statements concerning small percentages of active substances).
132 Bernard,
Isn't it just a facet of innumeracy? I don't recall where, but someone recently said that innumeracy seemed to be a common factor in almost all denialist* claims, other than the wacko conspiracy stuff, of course.
In fact, I'd extend this to ASS sufferers in general.
134 Stu,
I assumed that my reference to G@rm@ would have been enough, but it actually doesn't matter if they can be easily mistaken for one another. That was my point, really.
136 Stu,
I've been caught many times because I forgot that the blog filter traps posts containing a certain name, that person having been banned here, so I now say G@rm@. Fr@@d is another word to watch out for.
140 Mike,
It might be futile with such people, but I'd also point out that ozone plays a huge part in protecting us from UV and ask them how much O3 is in the atmosphere.
TS @ 144, I find that example particularly effective. Using an atmospheric gas generally works better than, say, a toxin, because the toxin can be dismissed as irrelevant to the atmosphere.
If you didn't know, stratospheric ozone has peak concentrations of about 6-8ppm, see
145 Stu,
And is commonly measured in parts per billion.
@truesceptic:
To the scientifically illiterate ppb sounds like a bigger number...
147 Marco,
Doh! Should've have thought of that. ;)
This is not the year to talk about snow cover extent with 2010 having the most significant melt season in the last 44 years (note first graph). We went from the 3rd most snow cover extent in North America in Febraury to the least snow cover extent of the last 44 years in April.
TrueSceptic @144, and if O3 concentration is not enough, point out that CFCs, measured in pp trillion, all combined amount less than 1 ppbv, yet it's the chlorine atoms in them that created the ozone hole.
Jim, true, but if you are a true denialist then you don't believe that the ozone hole problems were caused by CFCs either. The fact that they are measured in ppb just reinforces that view.
You can't win.
150 Jim,
Yes, but the sort of people we're talking about probably believe the ozone hole was/is a hoax and the CFC ban was part of the great environazi plot to destroy civilisation.
I think they do accept that ozone does exist, though, and that it blocks a lot of UV. There's only so much the worst denier can deny.
GWBN,
Snap!
So are we paying our attention to the rodeo clowns, instead of the real stars of the show who may also have issues to be caught? Time to look a little harder at the other, superficially more convincing presentations in case these guys with their fake charts are just out there to serve as distractions.
@144/145
Ozone's certainly a good example too. I use the toxin one when they've decided they simply won't listen to anything related to atmospheric physics.
It all illustrates how much fun it can be to formulate multiple practical examples of how the "teeny-tiny things can't possibly affect large systems" sceptical argument remains one of the most inane and stupid concepts they've ever come up with.
And it's a brutally tough competition for that honour, I concede.
Oh no, don't mention Ozone. That just makes them angrier, because the Montreal Protocol, you know, *worked*.
I hear you, TS and GWBN, but in my experience if the denier isn't the one to have brought up CFCs and the ozone hole themselves then they tend not to catch on. It's sort of like CO2 is the waiving red flag to a bull and they just can't hold two concepts in their head at the same time.
Besides, always remember that it is not the troll that you are trying to educate -- that's a hopeless waste of time -- but the lurkers. They may be far more receptive to the analogy, and put off by another example of the troll's denial of physical reality.
>but the sort of people we're talking about probably believe the ozone hole was/is a hoax
Yep, I've met those!
Information that conflicts with their preferred view is simply reason for widening the conspiracy.
Whoops, I just got caught in the trap [identified by Hank](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli…).
And I note the [valuable point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli…) also made by Jim.
jakerman@159: It's fair to point out that they also use one to bolster the other. In one case I saw, a denier was dealing with a particular piece by Sue Solomon (I forget which one). Their logic went like this: Because she'd previously done some high-profile work on ozone depletion, which was clearly all a big hoax (because we're not all dead yet), anything else she says can be dismissed offhand as some other enviro-commie lie.
Not that they could point out anything that was factually incorrect about it, of course.
JamesA,
LB in an adjacent thread linked to [this relevant post](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/google-galileo-five-…).
>they are trapped in what classic studies of neurosis call âsuspicious thinkingâ. âThe cognitive style of the denialist represents a warped sense of reality, which is why arguing with them gets you nowhere,â he says. âAll people fit the world into their own sense of reality, but the suspicious person distorts reality with uncommon rigidity.â
> Because she'd previously done some high-profile work on ozone depletion, which was clearly all a big hoax (because we're not all dead yet)...
Yep, the popular fallacy that problems that don't occur (after intervention) would therefore never have occurred anyway.
Ask the Tasmanian, New Zealand, or Chilean Association's of Dermatologist if there is an Ozone hole problem.
BTW, its still a struggle to keep the Ozone hole from expanding. USA has massive stockpile of Bromide based agricultural products and China was exempt from the CFC ban under the Montreal protocol for a period (which may not have expired). I'm not sure if either of these issues are resolved, and last I heard the trend in the Ozone hole was not yet clearly downward.
Plot the local weather forecast, ie daily forecasted temperature on the Kelvin scale, with axis running from 0K to 350K (that should cover all realistic daily temperature maxima), and ask one of these doltheads how useful the 7 day forecast is when presented on such a graph? They'll need Granddad's coke bottle glasses to see the little wiggles from night-time to day-time temperature and back again.
But really. If the doltheads can't figure out why they are doltheads, how can we reasonably expect them to figure out the fallacy of the presentation?
> Yep, the popular fallacy that problems that don't occur (after intervention) would therefore never have occurred anyway.
As also seen when people claim the non-existence of swine flu, acid rain and the millennium bug. Of course, it's the anti-vacc crowd that really take that particular logical fallacy to the next level.
In protest, I just burnt all my copies of Sweet Baby Jane.
Wait, I meant sweet baby james. Okay, I don't have any James Taylor albums and it's the wrong James Taylor, but the thought counts.
This is OT but has anyone seen accounts of the Oxford union debate about AGW vs economic growt held on May the 20th. Monckton was central and Monckton and his pals won on a hand count. It seems that a bunch of no hopers was put up against them.
Perhaps Tim should've been there along with Barry Brooke.
But my beef is, when, when will we ever learn that these guys will bully a debate for propaganda purposes and that we have to be shrewd and as cunning as them to turn back their bullying.
Jeremy, we (including Tim) had a look at it [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2543619).
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Responsetohidestheincli… you should read this
Thanks Jakerman
Ted, you are on the wrong thread. Besides that you should read this:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-easterbrook-defends-the-indefensibl…
followed by:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-the-100-years-of-warming-easterbroo…
Don Easterbrook, professor in willfull ignorance, deliberate faulty trend lines, and full of cr@p.
Ted, read [this thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/don_easterbrook_hides_the_incl…).
We've read Easterbrook's letter and found it grossly wanting.
Are you aware that Easterbrook's charts don't show the 20th centuries global warming?
For your information:
Off-topic but very interesting;
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?
Heavn and PreEarth were planets, a binary system orbiting the Sun. This happy arrangement continued for countless years, until, some unfortunate circumstance caused Heavn to collide with PreEarth, forming the Earth.
We investigate the evidence that the Earth is the child of such a collision. We show that the planets Heavn and PreEarth were of similar size and mass. We show that many of the Earth's topographical features, such as mountain chains and ocean basins, were created during the collision. We show that certain hard to explain features of the Earth, such as its magnetic field, can now be more easily understood. And, in establishing all this, we uncover a new theory on the origin of the Moon.
Much of PreEarth's crust survived the impact and is today the continental crust of the Earth. Although broken and contorted, giant pieces of the ancient crust acted as ships floating on a newly molten interior, insulating, and protecting, life from the fires below. Heavn itself, together with its crust, if it had one, disappeared into the interior of the PreEarth, never to be seen again. If we put the broken pieces of PreEarth's crust back together, we obtain the following map....
From: http://preearth.net/
WORTH A LOOK.
take a look over at WuWt, where another attempt to HIDE THE DECLINE went completely wrong:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/you-cursed-brat-look-what-youve-d…
Willis Eschenbach tried to "model" the arctic ice sheet as a cone, coming to the conclusion:
This means that the volume lost is V = 1/3 * (11900000 km^2 * 273 cm â 11789000 km2 * 268 cm) / (100000 cm/km)= 297 cubic km
This is much smaller than their estimate, which was 851 cubic km. And as a result, their estimate of global ice loss, 746 km^3, is reduced by 851 â 297 = 554 km^3, to give a final estimate of global ice loss of 192 cubic kilometres.
his error, as spotted by commentator âmbâ is a simple one: he uses the average thickness as the heights of the cone. but such a cone, has a completely different average thickness.
the term "conehead" jumps to mind, but please se for yourselves...
if you are heading into the pit already, you might also go full circle, and take a look at the defence of Cuccinelli, that Anthony allowed to be posted:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/ken-cuccinelli-versus-810-academi…
@176.
I'm afraid I can't look. I lose just a little increment of my grip on reality each time I read the amazing re-defining of the known world of physics and mathematics on WUWT. If that continues, I'll soon have no reality left, and the men in white coats will come to take me away. :(
you should take a look.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/you-cursed-brat-look-what-youve-d…
the stuff posted by Willis is always wrong, but this time it is so easy to spot his error. and he is in complete denial.
just classic.
Did anyone look at the http://preearth.net/ site.
What do you think of it?
The animations are certainly thought provoking.
...is a hoot.
I especially like where somebody has taken the trouble to draw Willis' cone representing the ice pack, to scale:
"As you can see, âpointyâ is hardly accurate. You canât even see the âpointâ until we increase the vertical scale by a factor of 10,000."
If anyone is interested, the guy, Kevin Mansfield, who wrote the article at http://preearth.net/ is a New Zealander.
He is a graduate of the University of Auckland with a PhD from the University of New South Wales in mathematics.
Brent's thread is getting much too much attention.
Fun with preearth:
> Fun with preearth
I didn't look at the preearth links when they were posted here - fairly sure I've heard some wacky theory like that before - but the "fun with preearth" link is good value ;-)
Oh, that's really cool.
http://www.everything-science.com makes outrageous statements then prevents one from answering them.
Really childish of http://www.NOT-everything-science.com
One of the geophysicists mentioned in the thread has got back to me (3 to go) and points out one definite mistake (about NASA's GPS stuff) and instances where he would like to see a few changes.
None of you science amateurs on any of these forums spotted this mistake.
You did spot a load of non-mistakes though (which you hoped were mistakes).
Try having a look at http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/104316-Did-Earth-coalesce-from-…
Can still post there at present,...
Not sure why preearth is posting on this off-topic thread...
...but the Crank Index is ticking over nicely, courtesy (amongst other things) of [false claims of censorship which are threatened to "make a nice story"](http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/104316-Did-Earth-coalesce-from-…) (after it has been explained that [new posters are manually moderated for a while](http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/104316-Did-Earth-coalesce-from-…)), and more...
``
The Friends of Science hide the decline, too
I don't know if somebody has already covered this in a previous comment. If so, my apologies.
What's the point of talking about extra snow when extra snow is not an indicator of colder temperatures? It could be 0 degrees F. without a cloud in the sky or 28 degrees with large amounts of snow. It is humidity that determines the amount, if any, of snow.
Which brings us to Global Warming. It was predicted that increased temperatures in the oceans. Warmer seas evaporate more, leading to more humidity that turns into more clouds.
This in turn leads to more intense rains such as the ones we've been having (Minneapolis, Fargo and Tennessee). Or more snow depending on the circumstances.