Arctic Sea Ice Downfall
Showing posts with label climate change denial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change denial. Show all posts
Idiotic Denier Of The Day
Some awards come easily to some people and this one for Idiotic mis-interpretation of the evidence is well deserved by Steve Goddard and awarded to him over at uknowispeaksense, full repost below;
Yes, ok. You got me, my niece would never use such a fat crayon to
draw a graph, unless she wanted it to be fuzzy. This masterpiece is the
work of Steve Goddard who, at his woefully misnamed blog, “Real Science”
is trying to debunk a strawman.
According to Steve, in 2007 AGW proponents, “went hysterical and told
us that the Arctic would be ice free by 2008, 2010, 2012 or 2013″ and
then provided this……..graph to debunk it. Of course, Steve ‘I just
graduated preschool’ Goddard, didn’t provide a reference to these
statements. So some mythical scientists have been debunked. Well done
Steve, well done. You really showed…….them. Of course, my mate Geoffrey
Brown faithfully cut and paste the same graph over
at my favourite denier den, the official blog of the Climate Sceptics
Party and included an admission to being a conspiracy theorist of the
highest order, but that’s for another day.
So what of this….graph? Well, Steve supplied a link to the data he has used for his blue crayon special and it seems it goes all the way back to 1979. It’s no wonder he cherrypicked the last few years. Here’s a graph or two from the same website. First, what Steve’s magic blue crayon graph would have looked like if he used all the data.
Next, let’s take it back a little further and look at the longer term trend broken down into seasons.
So,
there you have it. “Real Science” and real science. Which are you going
to accept? Personally, I think I’ll go with the latter. I’m not really
into crayons.
Idiotic denier graph of the day, August 26,2012
Yep, something a little different. I got my 3-year-old niece to draw on a piece of paper with a fat blue crayon and this is what she drew.
Conrats Steve Goddard! You have graduated from preschool.
So what of this….graph? Well, Steve supplied a link to the data he has used for his blue crayon special and it seems it goes all the way back to 1979. It’s no wonder he cherrypicked the last few years. Here’s a graph or two from the same website. First, what Steve’s magic blue crayon graph would have looked like if he used all the data.
Next, let’s take it back a little further and look at the longer term trend broken down into seasons.
So,
there you have it. “Real Science” and real science. Which are you going
to accept? Personally, I think I’ll go with the latter. I’m not really
into crayons.
Steve Goddard BS – Worse Than It Seems
In what must be the strangest and most desperate post on Real Science about Arctic Sea Ice, (Currently at a record low extent), Steve Goddard posts a part picture of the Arctic from arctic.io, rephotographs it off the monitor with his phone, which apparently 'does some color/gamma correction automatically', to make the claim that there is more ice in that region than is apparently obvious in the picture!
Well that it seems is all the evidence this right wing-nut needs to dismiss all the evidence of ice melt this year. Forget this graph of declining see ice extent;
Forget about these from NSIDC;
Forget about all the actual evidence, because Steve Goddard of Real Science has got a camera phone! I wonder what sort of App? Seriously, I thought I would find using real science to debunk skeptical arguments on blogs like Real Science at least a bit of a challenge but then you get idiot posts from Goddard like this.
Well that it seems is all the evidence this right wing-nut needs to dismiss all the evidence of ice melt this year. Forget this graph of declining see ice extent;
 |
| From http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/is-climate-really-changing/ |
Forget about all the actual evidence, because Steve Goddard of Real Science has got a camera phone! I wonder what sort of App? Seriously, I thought I would find using real science to debunk skeptical arguments on blogs like Real Science at least a bit of a challenge but then you get idiot posts from Goddard like this.
He Could Have Been Born Yesterday
I may have mentioned on here before that Steve Goddard is a 'Birther' in that he believes Americas first non-white president wasn't born in the US so can't really be the President.
In a recent post he provides 'evidence' from a paper that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Straight away a commenter pointed out that was was an old hoax and documented in snopes, other facts were added including evidence that his father was in Hawaii at the time he was born and unlikely to send his pregnant wife to a third world country to give birth. No record of any such journey exists for there and back in any case. There does exist a birth certificate form a Hospital in Honolulu and confirmed as authentic. We also have Kenyan official denying that Obama was born there. This is in comments by people who are normally very supportive of Goddard's climate denial posts but obviously are unwilling to stoop to this whole new level of crazy.
Steve Goddard is having none of it. The link he has is all the proof that is needed.
So we have multiple lines of evidence all pointing to one conclusion and a single piece of discredited evidence pointing to another. Which does Goddard support? The one that tells him what he want to hear of course.
Remind you of anything?
In a recent post he provides 'evidence' from a paper that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Straight away a commenter pointed out that was was an old hoax and documented in snopes, other facts were added including evidence that his father was in Hawaii at the time he was born and unlikely to send his pregnant wife to a third world country to give birth. No record of any such journey exists for there and back in any case. There does exist a birth certificate form a Hospital in Honolulu and confirmed as authentic. We also have Kenyan official denying that Obama was born there. This is in comments by people who are normally very supportive of Goddard's climate denial posts but obviously are unwilling to stoop to this whole new level of crazy.
Steve Goddard is having none of it. The link he has is all the proof that is needed.
So we have multiple lines of evidence all pointing to one conclusion and a single piece of discredited evidence pointing to another. Which does Goddard support? The one that tells him what he want to hear of course.
Remind you of anything?
Northern Hemisphere’s shifting curve.
Steve Goddard and others are having a hard time deflecting attention from climate change with the weather extremes that are occurring around the world this year and people are starting to notice. They have been scouring the records to find a headline to mislead with. Here is an example for the Orwellian 'Real Science'; 'US Summers Getting Cooler Since 1895', and it even comes with a graph to prove it;
This certainly indicates a decline in the summer temps shown so how can there be more climate extremes now? The answer is in the graphs title, 'Summer Maximum Temperatures' and I was going to do a long post on it but when I found it has been explained rather well over at 'uknowispeaksense', I thought plagiarism is so much easier than origionality so I will let them take up the story;
I’ve already had one commenter in here point out a bunch of cherrypicked individual high temperature records from all sorts of places and from different times and asking me how there can be new extremes as reported by James Hansen if these records haven’t been broken. Of course Hansen’s data is dealing in average temperatures not indivdual records. As the average temperatures increase the bell curve shifts to the right indicating that on average, extreme highs will increase and extreme lows decrease. Without bothering to check the credibility of the data that suggests that in Seville, Spain on August 4, 1881 it was 122 degrees F, and assuming it is correct, my question is, so what? We are not dealing with individual time points here, we are dealing with decadal averages. That said, here’s the thing, average global temperatures are rising. That fact is indisputable. That also means maximum temperature anomalies and outliers will continue to be superceded. It is inevitable. Continuing to try and muddy the waters with erroneous outliers just demonstrates how desperate deniers are to hang on to their evermore untenable positions. It is sad.
Here is a page with some excellent graphics. The first, showing the increasing number of “hot” and “very hot” summers in the northern hemisphere and the second, the graphic highlighting the shift to the right.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming-links.html
Suyts Fails To Touch Base
It seems that either my criticisms at suyts place or my last post pointing out that his claim about Arctic temperatures in the thirties compared to today used temperatures over a decade out of date embarrassed him enough to do a further post where he actually tried to get some current temps to compare the thirties with. He even dedicated the post to me! - Now there is someone who is easy to awe. He even got off to a good start by choosing UAH satellite data.
Unfortunately he made another totally embarrassing hash of his analysis. His commentators even congraulated and fawned over it and one even re-blogged it, so it doesn't bode well for their critical thinking skills. To be honest it was doomed from the start because suyts already had the answer he wanted so it didn't really matter what the data showed, he was always going to get the answer he needed.
The technique he chose involved 'splicing' the UHA data to the Cosimo graph mentioned in the last post. This is not necessarily a bad thing if done correctly but like so many AGW deniers he says it shouldn't be done. Adding data sets from different sources in appropriate in a Meta Analysis is common across all science disciplines. It is especially common in climatology, and the likes of Prof Mann has done it, so if deniers can convince themselves it shouldn't be done at all it allows them to dismiss at least some of the science showing how wrong their thinking is.
So suyts makes it clear that he doesn't like 'splicing'. In fact he makes the point several times but then does it anyway and uses his results as evidence he was right all along. That's right - he uses a technique he believes is invalid to get a result that proves his case and makes a post about it. The irony of the contradiction seems lost on his commentators but wouldn't be on anyone with the slightest sense of true skeptcism.
So by all rights this post should end here with another embarasment to suyts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However 'splicing' is a valid thing to do so maybe even if suyts doesn't like it he still has made a valid point - if only:
He first graphs the last decade of the UHA data set with a trend and a 60 month moving average and gets this;
Then hesticks aligns 'the anomaly axis to match Cosimo’s' graph that he used in his first failed post and gets this;
I suppose because the black smear, (highlighted by my red arrow), is below the 'thick black line' he added then he believes that the current 5 year average is below that of the 1930s and claims 'that the arctic, after adding the recent arctic temps, is still colder than what it was in the late 1930s'.
What suyts had done is not the same technique, even if he believes it is. You just can't take different data sets and align 'the anomaly axis' to zero. This shows such ignorance of the basics it is difficult to believe that he not only did it but his, (now apparently just as ignorant), commentators didn't call him out on it.
Unfortunately he made another totally embarrassing hash of his analysis. His commentators even congraulated and fawned over it and one even re-blogged it, so it doesn't bode well for their critical thinking skills. To be honest it was doomed from the start because suyts already had the answer he wanted so it didn't really matter what the data showed, he was always going to get the answer he needed.
The technique he chose involved 'splicing' the UHA data to the Cosimo graph mentioned in the last post. This is not necessarily a bad thing if done correctly but like so many AGW deniers he says it shouldn't be done. Adding data sets from different sources in appropriate in a Meta Analysis is common across all science disciplines. It is especially common in climatology, and the likes of Prof Mann has done it, so if deniers can convince themselves it shouldn't be done at all it allows them to dismiss at least some of the science showing how wrong their thinking is.
So suyts makes it clear that he doesn't like 'splicing'. In fact he makes the point several times but then does it anyway and uses his results as evidence he was right all along. That's right - he uses a technique he believes is invalid to get a result that proves his case and makes a post about it. The irony of the contradiction seems lost on his commentators but wouldn't be on anyone with the slightest sense of true skeptcism.
So by all rights this post should end here with another embarasment to suyts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However 'splicing' is a valid thing to do so maybe even if suyts doesn't like it he still has made a valid point - if only:
He first graphs the last decade of the UHA data set with a trend and a 60 month moving average and gets this;
Then he
Oh Dear!
Combining data sets, when done appropriately, is valid. If you don't understand why then consdier this; If various samples; ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments etc., when tested are known to contain different values related to temperature, then how can you can you determine what those temperatures are unless you align the values with known and reliable temperatures for at least part of the record? So these proxy temperature records are aligned with known temperatures, usually the most accurate instrument record for the same area the proxies are taken from, to determine temperatures back in that record when temperatures are known with less certainty. So if it is valid to calculate proxy temperatures using this method how can it be invalid to add (splice) the most accurate temperatures to the record? This is really all that Prof Manns 'Nature Trick' amounted to - he added the most accurate instrument record to over write and extend the proxy record and had it documented in research published in Nature magazine.What suyts had done is not the same technique, even if he believes it is. You just can't take different data sets and align 'the anomaly axis' to zero. This shows such ignorance of the basics it is difficult to believe that he not only did it but his, (now apparently just as ignorant), commentators didn't call him out on it.
Different data sets have different base lines!
The Cosimo graph appears to use data with a 1961-1990 (HadCru) base line. The UHA satellite data has a 1979-1999 base line - this data set didn't start until the December 1978. Of course the 5 year trend of the UHA is going to be below! The only way to do the 'splicing' properly is to average the same time period for all data sets used - something I'm not prepared to spend time on as there is plenty of current research showing recent Arctic temperatures are unprecedented in several centuries. But I thought I would do a rough calculation on the differences in the base lines and reapply suyts technique to see what he would have got if he had knowing anything about science.
Using this link I got the data for the major temperature data sets and worked out the average of HadCru between 1979 - 1999 and also for the UHA data for the same period. I found HadCru = -0.03742 and UHA = -0.0933, so a difference or the offset is 0.055888.
I then plotted the same UHA decade that suyts used in his post to ensure we were both using the same data set in the same way and got this;
The graph looked the same so I rescaled it with the offset and added it to the original Cosimo graph and ended up with this:
As you can see the trend is well above the 1930s level. I know this technique is not very accurate in either calculating the offset nor the alignment so just to check that it wasn't a totally inaccurate depiction I looked for a graph showing past to current Arctic temperature trends and found this from the Alaska Satellite Facility;
It has an 11 year rather than a 5 avg year but it still clearly shows the peak in the 1930s and it even more clearly shows it was not as warm as current temperatures.
So how did suyts do?
Other than using a technique that he believes wont give a valid answer, and displaying little knowledge of some very basic scientific methods, and being totally ignorant of the concept of data sets having a different zero base line for anomalies the boy did rather well! It remains to be seen if he has the honesty and maturity to correct his rather obvious mistakes and perhaps even apologise for misleading his very gullible readers, but based on his example so far and this latest nonsense it doesn't bode well so I'm not going to be holding my breath - however time will tell.
Warmer In The Thirties - I think NOT
A regular commenter on the Orwellian named 'Real Science' is someone called suyts who has merited a mention on Really Sciency before for his ‘some pale shading’ and his warped logic achieving 'muppet' status. Well this guy has his own blog which reaches a whole new level of crazy.
Recently the 'syuts place' blog made a very specific claim - "Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties!!". Yes the two exclaimation marks were his just to show how significant he wanted the claim to be considered. He even included graphs picked out from actual credible sourses to prove it;
The actual source for his graph is Warming Trends in the Arctic from Clear Sky Satellite Observations, JOSEFINO C. COMISO, from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center which appeared in Journal of Climate way back in 2003, via NASA's "Evidence of Arctic Warming" page.
It is true that the 'thick black line' shows that the temperature trend was higher in the thirties than it is by the end of the graph. However if you read the paper you find that Comiso and the research fully support the global warming theory - as does NASA. There is no doubt about this and the Abstract clearly states;
First, as another poster, uknowispeaksense, (whose rather good blog I have been following for a while), says: "So What?" Cherry picking one area to suggest something significant about Global temperatures is wrong on so many levels. It a tired old tactic. Find an area that might just be bucking the trend for now and highlight it. Then when challenged claim that you were never suggesting it related to anything else. Of course if this were true and the person was honest, this would have been stated from the outset - "This area was warmer in the past than it is today - even though most other areas have warmed more now". This sort of level of openness and honesty is rarely found in those who are desperate to find something to support their beliefs.
So simply put, even if suyts is correct in his statement that the "Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties", (and he isn't as I will show), without a global context the statement is as significant as saying refrigerators were as warm in the thirties.
The second point I wanted to make is obvious to anyone with the slightest hint of real scepticism. The graph presented stops over a decade ago. I included a link showing more recent temperatures from NOAA's Arctic Report Card. This is from 2011;
It clearly shows that while the peak trend in thirties was high in 2000, where Comiso's data ends, that by 2003 the temperature trend exceeds any in the record. Natural variation still causes the temperature to drop below my line but the overall direction of the trend is clear and with 2012 so far the warmest recorded for the Northern Hemisphere I strongly suspect that trend is likely to continue.
So what response does someone get from suyts for highlighting more recent data that clearly shows that the Arctic was NOT warmer in the thirties?
He also replied;
As for using the same data that was used in the Comiso paper, that data ended in 2000 but it was data approved by NASA just as the data used in the NOAA graph - except of course that data was more current.
There was of course a lot more rambling but none of it provided any support for the Warmer In The Thirties claim. Undeterred by his irrational nonsense I decided to spell out what would be acceptable evidence
But even looking at the two graphs he is still wrong. Below you will see the two graphs taken from the original sources one overlayed on top of the other. I have squashed and stretched the images as necessary to get both scales to align. The only other alteration I have done is to alter the contrast to highlight the trend over the variation on one graph and coloured the other graph red so that differences can be easily seen. The graphs track each other very well. There is no indication that the one showing recent data (red) has been manipulated in such a way as to make the past colder, as I suspect suyts is trying to insinuate, in fact the older graph in black could be a trend of the other. If anyone doubts it do the exact same exercise and align up the scales.
It is crystal clear from the data that the warming trend continues into the next decade, as it does in all recognised temperature data sets. Guess what? The Arctic Was NOT Warmer In The Thirties!
However I'm still certain that suyts will claim that the recent data is unreliable. But there is a simple point of logic here; If we chose to believe over reason that the data is unreliable, how can it be claimed that it was cooler than any previous time?
Recently the 'syuts place' blog made a very specific claim - "Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties!!". Yes the two exclaimation marks were his just to show how significant he wanted the claim to be considered. He even included graphs picked out from actual credible sourses to prove it;
 |
| "I added the thick black line" appears on the NASA version by suyts. |
It is true that the 'thick black line' shows that the temperature trend was higher in the thirties than it is by the end of the graph. However if you read the paper you find that Comiso and the research fully support the global warming theory - as does NASA. There is no doubt about this and the Abstract clearly states;
The longer-term in situ surface temperature data shows that the 20-yr trend is 8 times larger than the 100-yr trend suggesting a rapid acceleration in the warming that may be associated with the recent change in phase of the Arctic Oscillation that has been linked to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.So basically suyts has cherry picked a graph, altered it a little and taking it out of context has added his own denial spin that is totally at odds from the actual published research - a typical tactic when no real research supports your beliefs.
But is there any evidence that the Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties?
I commented on suyts post to make two specific points;First, as another poster, uknowispeaksense, (whose rather good blog I have been following for a while), says: "So What?" Cherry picking one area to suggest something significant about Global temperatures is wrong on so many levels. It a tired old tactic. Find an area that might just be bucking the trend for now and highlight it. Then when challenged claim that you were never suggesting it related to anything else. Of course if this were true and the person was honest, this would have been stated from the outset - "This area was warmer in the past than it is today - even though most other areas have warmed more now". This sort of level of openness and honesty is rarely found in those who are desperate to find something to support their beliefs.
So simply put, even if suyts is correct in his statement that the "Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties", (and he isn't as I will show), without a global context the statement is as significant as saying refrigerators were as warm in the thirties.
The second point I wanted to make is obvious to anyone with the slightest hint of real scepticism. The graph presented stops over a decade ago. I included a link showing more recent temperatures from NOAA's Arctic Report Card. This is from 2011;
 |
| This time the black line has been added by me |
It clearly shows that while the peak trend in thirties was high in 2000, where Comiso's data ends, that by 2003 the temperature trend exceeds any in the record. Natural variation still causes the temperature to drop below my line but the overall direction of the trend is clear and with 2012 so far the warmest recorded for the Northern Hemisphere I strongly suspect that trend is likely to continue.
So what response does someone get from suyts for highlighting more recent data that clearly shows that the Arctic was NOT warmer in the thirties?
"I thought it was you guys who put so much stock in “peer-review”."I assume that this response is because the NOAA graph is from their report card and suyts graph is cherry picked and misrepresented from research that is totally at odds from his beliefs.
He also replied;
"warmists, for some reason, don’t like this graph. They aren’t very explicit as to why"Clearly Language comprehension isn’t his strong suit and the meaning of “the graphs presented stop over a decade ago” was out side his range of understanding. I then asked him specifically “Do you accept that the recent temperature data for the area shows your headline to be false?” His direct answer was No. The graphed data demonstrably shows that he is wrong. His reasoning was bizarre;
"Now, using the same data set as COMISO, show that I’m wrong."Why would I have to show him wrong? It must be accepted from the data I presented that his headline clearly is wrong. Logic would state it is up to him to present evidence to the contrary, especially since he had presented no recent data to support his recent claim. A bit like stating flared trousers are the height of fashion and proving with a picture from the 1970s.
 |
| suyts - height of fashion? |
As for using the same data that was used in the Comiso paper, that data ended in 2000 but it was data approved by NASA just as the data used in the NOAA graph - except of course that data was more current.
There was of course a lot more rambling but none of it provided any support for the Warmer In The Thirties claim. Undeterred by his irrational nonsense I decided to spell out what would be acceptable evidence
"The NOAA document I have linked shows Arctic up to 2010 and clearly shows a peak about 0.7 kelvin above the 30s peak. By all means show ANY data from a recognised source covering the same area and time frame you prefer if you can find any actually showing the ‘Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties’."It was at this point that he started to believe he was Batman!
Wholly crap Laz! ... What is implicit throughout the entire post and comments are that none of the present data sets show what was once shown. Notice how your NOAA offering butchers the data?Ah, so that's it. A conspiracy, the data has been manipulated in nefariousness ways. I actually knew this was coming because in a previous comment I stated I was "not really interested in any conspiracy nonsense" he would concoct. The psychological problem with those that believe in conspiracy theories is that by necessity they do not think them a conspiracy. I'm not suggesting that he is wrong about data adjustments. They are necessary to reduce uncertainties as the science improves. The problem is that the conspiracy theorist will always believe that they have either been altered to prove them wrong or not altered, (in the case of not compensating enough for the heat island effect), to not prove them right.
But even looking at the two graphs he is still wrong. Below you will see the two graphs taken from the original sources one overlayed on top of the other. I have squashed and stretched the images as necessary to get both scales to align. The only other alteration I have done is to alter the contrast to highlight the trend over the variation on one graph and coloured the other graph red so that differences can be easily seen. The graphs track each other very well. There is no indication that the one showing recent data (red) has been manipulated in such a way as to make the past colder, as I suspect suyts is trying to insinuate, in fact the older graph in black could be a trend of the other. If anyone doubts it do the exact same exercise and align up the scales.
It is crystal clear from the data that the warming trend continues into the next decade, as it does in all recognised temperature data sets. Guess what? The Arctic Was NOT Warmer In The Thirties!
However I'm still certain that suyts will claim that the recent data is unreliable. But there is a simple point of logic here; If we chose to believe over reason that the data is unreliable, how can it be claimed that it was cooler than any previous time?
Oh dear poor suyts;
Even Half a Brain Makes You Over Qualified
The globe isn’t warming any more.
This may have come as a shock to anyone with a brain but it's true. I know you might be wondering about certain facts you may have heard like the Global temperature from GISS, HADCRUT , RSS, UAH and BEST all showing a long term warming trend or that nine of the 10 hottest years occurred since 2000.But don't let all that empirical evidence and your common sense get in the way, the globe isn't warming anymore because it says so in a recent Real Science post. To comment and suggest this claim is a joke means, according the great intellectual Mr. Goddard, that you only have half a brain.
Then again perhaps Goddard is wrong (yet again) and having even half a brain makes you over qualified to have a rational debate with him and most of his followers, as none at the time of writing has had the sense to query such and absurd and unfounded claim, some even appear to support him!
Goddard Gets Hot Under the Collar
Mr Steve Goddard is getting hot under the collar and it's not only due to the terrible wild fires in Colorado, it's the result of the media highlighting the possibility that the wild fires may have been exasperated due to global warming.
So much so he is again misleading his, largely ignorant, following on his blog. It's uncertain if he does this deliberately or through his own basic ignorance - it's difficult to tell, but both James Hansen and Phil Jones get targeted by his nonsense - I mean his 'theory' - that they are wrong because temperatures have not increased in Boulder Colorado so global warming cant be linked to these wild fires.
The thing is, it doesn't take much on an intellect to realise that temperature isn't the main factor in wild fires, it's drought. Temperature isn't even the main factor in drought, it lack of water. So what does current drought conditions for Colorado look like;
It went from this;
To this in just over two months;
But Mr. Goddard isn't likely to reveal this to his readers any time soon.
So much so he is again misleading his, largely ignorant, following on his blog. It's uncertain if he does this deliberately or through his own basic ignorance - it's difficult to tell, but both James Hansen and Phil Jones get targeted by his nonsense - I mean his 'theory' - that they are wrong because temperatures have not increased in Boulder Colorado so global warming cant be linked to these wild fires.
The thing is, it doesn't take much on an intellect to realise that temperature isn't the main factor in wild fires, it's drought. Temperature isn't even the main factor in drought, it lack of water. So what does current drought conditions for Colorado look like;
It went from this;
To this in just over two months;
But Mr. Goddard isn't likely to reveal this to his readers any time soon.
Mass Migration
Mass Migration of species toward the pole due to climate change has led to Mass Migration of reason from Steve Goddard at Real Science - he even gave me some credit for the post showing so much misunderstanding of science that even those in remedial education should spot it.
Recently I provided a link to a meta study for a commenter on a Real Science post who stated;
It appears that Goddard was displeased with real scientific research being linked on his blog because he used my link as the subject of another post that turned out to be wrong in some many embarrassing ways.
In his post he asks;
It was a meta analysis of 54 separate studies that looked at data for over 2000 animal and plant species and found that species were moving toward the poles or to higher elevations at an average rate of around 20 cm per hour, faster than a previous study found in 2003.
Goddard then states;
The 70s were a little cooler than 1940s to be sure but that was warmer than all previous years - wouldn't starting a study from then be cherry picking? In any case it is clear that even the 70s were just part of an overall warming trend that began after 1900 so if Goddard's theory where species continually wander north and south and up and down is true, then they have been migrating both north and higher for several decades before 1940 in response to warming, just as this honest study continues to prove.
As to cherry picking, can Goddard point to any species data from the 1940s that could be included in a study such as this and would support his preposterous claims of these scientists being intentionally deceptive and dishonest? Without such evidence his beliefs are just unproven ramblings of an unqualified conspiracy theorist blogger. Suitable studies do not date back that far but it is reasonable to assume based on the evidence of this research that species also migrated due to warming as long as there has been a warming trend and according to the GISS graph that pre-dates 1940.
However if Goddard was even slightly interested in science he would have looked at this meta-study and saw that many of the studies used actually did use data sets older than 1970, many were from the 60s and even one from as far back as 1947.
But now comes Mr. Goddard's biggest howler as he goes for a hat-trick; His claim that the government is wasting billions of taxpayer dollars repeating this research. Ignoring that he is wrong about this being repeated research, and forgiving his alarmist 'wasting billions of dollars' shriek, this study was carried out by scientists in the Department of Biology at the University of York, England. Not a single taxpayer dollar was used.
Recently I provided a link to a meta study for a commenter on a Real Science post who stated;
“Migration towards the poles has not been observed.”The link I provided showing this was simply untrue was a report nearly a year ago called 'Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming' published in Science.
It appears that Goddard was displeased with real scientific research being linked on his blog because he used my link as the subject of another post that turned out to be wrong in some many embarrassing ways.
In his post he asks;
"Why is it necessary for the government to keep wasting billions of dollars repeating the same cherry picked study over and over and over again?"Clearly he doesn't really understand what a meta study is. This wasn't a single study let alone a repeated one.
It was a meta analysis of 54 separate studies that looked at data for over 2000 animal and plant species and found that species were moving toward the poles or to higher elevations at an average rate of around 20 cm per hour, faster than a previous study found in 2003.
Goddard then states;
"Why doesn’t someone do an honest study – which starts in the 1940s? We see 1970s cherry picking in almost every single study coming out now. It is worse than intentionally deceptive, as it is intended to defraud the reader into drawing a wrong conclusion which the larger data set does not support."Not honest, intentionally deceptive, cherry picking? It appears he is suggesting that this study chose data just from the 1970s to give the impression that species were moving, but if a study looked at a longer period of time this would not be the case. You see it 'was very cold during the 1970s', so all these 2000 species must have wandered south during that time and are just waltzing back again now. An 'honest' study starting from the 1940s would show that - well that appears to be what Mr Goddard is saying. He even provides his version of the GISS temperature graph just to prove it 'was very cold in the 1970s'. The official GISS graph is below.
The 70s were a little cooler than 1940s to be sure but that was warmer than all previous years - wouldn't starting a study from then be cherry picking? In any case it is clear that even the 70s were just part of an overall warming trend that began after 1900 so if Goddard's theory where species continually wander north and south and up and down is true, then they have been migrating both north and higher for several decades before 1940 in response to warming, just as this honest study continues to prove.
As to cherry picking, can Goddard point to any species data from the 1940s that could be included in a study such as this and would support his preposterous claims of these scientists being intentionally deceptive and dishonest? Without such evidence his beliefs are just unproven ramblings of an unqualified conspiracy theorist blogger. Suitable studies do not date back that far but it is reasonable to assume based on the evidence of this research that species also migrated due to warming as long as there has been a warming trend and according to the GISS graph that pre-dates 1940.
However if Goddard was even slightly interested in science he would have looked at this meta-study and saw that many of the studies used actually did use data sets older than 1970, many were from the 60s and even one from as far back as 1947.
But now comes Mr. Goddard's biggest howler as he goes for a hat-trick; His claim that the government is wasting billions of taxpayer dollars repeating this research. Ignoring that he is wrong about this being repeated research, and forgiving his alarmist 'wasting billions of dollars' shriek, this study was carried out by scientists in the Department of Biology at the University of York, England. Not a single taxpayer dollar was used.
Irony Bypass
With a total irony bypass, Steve Goddard says;
"In the case of continental drift, it took almost 70 years to accept the evidence, and allow the science to proceed."Anthropogenic Climate Change is based on basic science well over a century old and with good evidence to support current warming is caused by it for a few generations. Thankfully it hasn't taken the scientific community as long to accept it as it did continental drift. We can only hope that it will not take Goddard and his cronies much longer.
Steve Goddard Caught Lying?
To my recollection I have never directly called anyone a liar on any of the forums or blogs I have posted on as such terms prove too emotive which tends to get in the way of mature discourse. But have I caught Steve Goddard of Real Science in a bare faced lie?
In my last post I showed how Goddard's foolish attempts to slag of Prof. James Hansen backfired as it would seem Hansen made the correct call some 26years ago. I visited Goddard's post to reveal this with a link to my analysis, and no doubt embarrassed he responded with;
I suppose someone could have told him what my post contained and gave him the contact information, which would mean that he resorted to name calling based on hearsay. Far worse than lying in my book and someone who would do that would certainly be capable of lying too.
Or perhaps he just forgot he did. That would surprise me in the light of the embarrassing climb down he had to do when someone else realised his maps were botched and he crossed out what he said about me and issued a correction for his post. You'd think he be likely to remember doing that.
So have I caught Steve Goddard telling porkies? The evidence strongly suggests I have.
In my last post I showed how Goddard's foolish attempts to slag of Prof. James Hansen backfired as it would seem Hansen made the correct call some 26years ago. I visited Goddard's post to reveal this with a link to my analysis, and no doubt embarrassed he responded with;
"I have never visited your blog"Which is a rather strange thing to say since as a response to a post where I caught him doctoring maps he responded with a post on his own blog called 'Enough Is Enough' where he claimed that I had 'written thousands and thousands of lines all over the Internet' and he emailed me directly calling me 'scum' and a 'liar' as reported here.
- How did he reach his conclusions without ever reading what they were?
- How did he get my contact information without visiting the blog he claims to have never visited?
I suppose someone could have told him what my post contained and gave him the contact information, which would mean that he resorted to name calling based on hearsay. Far worse than lying in my book and someone who would do that would certainly be capable of lying too.
Or perhaps he just forgot he did. That would surprise me in the light of the embarrassing climb down he had to do when someone else realised his maps were botched and he crossed out what he said about me and issued a correction for his post. You'd think he be likely to remember doing that.
So have I caught Steve Goddard telling porkies? The evidence strongly suggests I have.
Real Science Proves Hansen Correct Again.
In a Real Science post, as usual aimed more at right wing politics than real science, Steve Goddard quotes James Hansen from 1986;
This isn't the fist time Goddard has shown Hansen to be correct even though he remains in denial. Like many foolish people Goddard doesn't know when to quit and his defence of this evidence is to incorrectly insist that;
But as can be clearly seen, Easterbrooks 'present ' times stopped in 1855 just as current global temperatures started to rise. It would be rather inconvenient for a science denier to include modern temperatures and highlight that present warming really is at an unprecedented high, not seen for many thousands of years. Clearly Goddard and his other foolish promoters of myths are living in the past as current average global temperatures are higher than 8000 years ago and as shown higher than over 100,000 years ago just as Hansen said they would be.
"Within 15 years, said Goddard Space Flight Centre honcho James Hansen, "global temperatures will rise to a level that hasn't existed on Earth in 100,000 years"Mr Goddard should look rather foolish as Hansen was right. Antarctic Ice Cores from Vostok revealing temperatures going back 800,000 years show that present temperatures are warmer than at any time in over the last 100,000 years. This is something that was unknown to science back in 1986, so whether Hansen made a lucky guess or an inspired one, he was right.
This isn't the fist time Goddard has shown Hansen to be correct even though he remains in denial. Like many foolish people Goddard doesn't know when to quit and his defence of this evidence is to incorrectly insist that;
"According to ice cores, temperatures peaked 8,000 years ago"This is an old denier fallacy which was promoted by people like Don Easterbrook and long debunked by sites like Skeptical Science. 8000 years was a warm period and Easterbrook presented graphs like this one that that showed just that;
But as can be clearly seen, Easterbrooks 'present ' times stopped in 1855 just as current global temperatures started to rise. It would be rather inconvenient for a science denier to include modern temperatures and highlight that present warming really is at an unprecedented high, not seen for many thousands of years. Clearly Goddard and his other foolish promoters of myths are living in the past as current average global temperatures are higher than 8000 years ago and as shown higher than over 100,000 years ago just as Hansen said they would be.
"There are two kinds of fools: those who can't change their opinions and those who won t."
Goddard's Appeal to Athority
Steve Goddard continues to misrepresent Hansen to misinform his readers, and probably himself.
As previously reported he accuses Hansen of calling or declaring a permanent drought in the US, when what Hansen actually said was, there would be a semi-permanent drought over the next several decades with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding.
He repeated a similar claim in his 'Warming To Bring Permanent Drought And Permanent Flood To The Midwest' post and said;
Well as anyone can see Hansen has never declared a permanent drought and certainly no drought for this present time. Nor has there been any war(n)ing of permanent floods. Why does Goddard feel the need to make this easily refuted stuff up?
Just to reiterate, what we have is drought conditions being alleviated somewhat by heavy rain. Doesn't that fit exactly what Hansen suggests will happen over the next several decades?
But it gets better. When I said "Shouldn’t that be Semi-permanent drought over several decades?", Mr Goddard replied with his usual politeness;
So straight away on being challenged Goddard drops the permanent drought claim - though don't hold your breath for a correction.
It seemed only fair that I should suggest he provide a quote of Hansen saying 'the exact same crap' three decades ago and he kindly provided a link to this news article about US drought in 1988;
Now any one with a keen intellect will immediately realise, (sorry Mr Goddard that can't include you), that 1988 can't be said to be three decades ago.
The article itself is also an interesting read in light of Goddard's claim. Although Hansen is quoted in it, and there is a quote "It is an example of the kind of drought that will occur more frequently as global warming become larger", this wasn't said by Hansen, but Manabe, a soil specialist.
However, something I found rather amusing happened in our conversation when I asked Goddard if he really did think 1988 was three decades ago. He replied in his usual amiable way;
Blow me, isn't that a prime example of the Fallacy: Appeal to Authority? Only using Goddard's view of his own self importance to make himself the authority?
As previously reported he accuses Hansen of calling or declaring a permanent drought in the US, when what Hansen actually said was, there would be a semi-permanent drought over the next several decades with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding.
He repeated a similar claim in his 'Warming To Bring Permanent Drought And Permanent Flood To The Midwest' post and said;
"No sooner than Hansen declared permanent drought for the midwest – we get a new global warming report warming of permanent floods in the midwest."
Well as anyone can see Hansen has never declared a permanent drought and certainly no drought for this present time. Nor has there been any war(n)ing of permanent floods. Why does Goddard feel the need to make this easily refuted stuff up?
Just to reiterate, what we have is drought conditions being alleviated somewhat by heavy rain. Doesn't that fit exactly what Hansen suggests will happen over the next several decades?
“Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding.”
But it gets better. When I said "Shouldn’t that be Semi-permanent drought over several decades?", Mr Goddard replied with his usual politeness;
" I have been hearing the exact same crap for three decades already."
So straight away on being challenged Goddard drops the permanent drought claim - though don't hold your breath for a correction.
It seemed only fair that I should suggest he provide a quote of Hansen saying 'the exact same crap' three decades ago and he kindly provided a link to this news article about US drought in 1988;
The article itself is also an interesting read in light of Goddard's claim. Although Hansen is quoted in it, and there is a quote "It is an example of the kind of drought that will occur more frequently as global warming become larger", this wasn't said by Hansen, but Manabe, a soil specialist.
However, something I found rather amusing happened in our conversation when I asked Goddard if he really did think 1988 was three decades ago. He replied in his usual amiable way;
"You are a know nothing idiot child. I was working on global warming studies at Los Alamos in 1980."Well 1980 is over three decades ago so I will give him that but perhaps he should have quoted his own published Global Warming research instead of a news article eight years later.
Blow me, isn't that a prime example of the Fallacy: Appeal to Authority? Only using Goddard's view of his own self importance to make himself the authority?
Hansen Forecast Verification
Goddard likes to twist the truth to align it with is ideology. In a recent post called "Hansen Forecast Verification" he claimed "Hansen called for permanent drought from Texas to North Dakota", only to show a US map of recent heavy rain in Texas. No reference was given but Goddard must have been referring to an opinion piece in the New York Times where Hansen didn't 'call' for anything but said;
But twisting things is Steven Goddard's modus operandi to give his deluded readership what they want to hear.
“Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding.”So it isn't a ' permanent drought' occurring now as Goddard misinforms his readers but a semi-permanent one that Hansen is referring to and is to happen over the next several decades, but even so it semi-permanent drought is still holding true even with the heavy rain in the past week, the rain was not sufficient to alleviate the current drought conditions.
But twisting things is Steven Goddard's modus operandi to give his deluded readership what they want to hear.
Fox News Can't Decide if Climate Change is for Real
A mirrored post from Christopher "Tanoro" Grays' blog; A Personal blog of science and reason
Just last week, I was arguing with someone on Facebook that when an organization with a clear-cut bias that claims to report the news cannot even get its own position straight, we should become less inclined to take said organization seriously. At the time, I was talking about NaturalNews.com, the Fox News of alternative health. This time, it's Fox News doing what it does best.
My boss told me this morning that Fox News released an article indicating that new research shows that wind farms may cause global warming.
What I find troubling, however, is what story was right below this one on Fox News' homepage.
The article highlighted here
discusses a blog by climate change denier, Steven Goddard, a former
guest author on WattsUpWithThat. The blog questions whether or not
greenhouse gases cause severe weather patterns attributed to climate
change. Now, this is not a topic with which I am familiar, so I cannot
comment on it. What I found most laughable is the author's introduction
in the Fox News article.
Secondly, Fox News has no trouble spelling out the pseudo-science claptrap of the anti-science minorities, but they fall flat on their faces when trying to transmit a simple message from the peer reviewed literature. What's worse, the message they successfully conveyed is by a stark opponent against climate change while the headliner is an article suggesting alternative energy causes climate change. Fox News, if I "head desked" everytime you got something hopelessly wrong, I'd have brain damage that strongly correlates with the frequency in which I read your content.
Sources:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1505.html
http://grist.org/list/wind-farms-do-not-cause-climate-change/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/30/wind-farms-are-warming-earth-researchers-say/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/30/proof-global-warming-isnt-making-weather-wackier/
Just last week, I was arguing with someone on Facebook that when an organization with a clear-cut bias that claims to report the news cannot even get its own position straight, we should become less inclined to take said organization seriously. At the time, I was talking about NaturalNews.com, the Fox News of alternative health. This time, it's Fox News doing what it does best.
My boss told me this morning that Fox News released an article indicating that new research shows that wind farms may cause global warming.
New research finds that wind farms actually warm up the surface of the land underneath them during the night, a phenomena that could put a damper on efforts to expand wind energy as a green energy solution.The title of the article is very misleading and doesn't quite reflect what the study's author actually said.
"Overall, the warming effect reported in our study is local and is small compared to the strong year-to-year changes" that result from natural variation, said Liming Zhou.This means that a big enough wind farm could cause small, but noticeable, change in local meterology, a warming effect quantified in the study as 0.72°C per decade in the regions containing such wind farms. That doesn't mean climate change! As usual, Fox News is trying to sensationalize the story.
What I find troubling, however, is what story was right below this one on Fox News' homepage.
The article highlighted here
discusses a blog by climate change denier, Steven Goddard, a former
guest author on WattsUpWithThat. The blog questions whether or not
greenhouse gases cause severe weather patterns attributed to climate
change. Now, this is not a topic with which I am familiar, so I cannot
comment on it. What I found most laughable is the author's introduction
in the Fox News article.Steven Goddard, who runs the skeptical climate blog Real Science and has a background in geology and computer science, has spent thousands of hours studying bad weather events around the world.What is wrong with this picture? First of all, Fox News is quoting an expert in geology and computer science on the subject of meterology and climatology? I can actually hear my brain cells shriek in pain.
Secondly, Fox News has no trouble spelling out the pseudo-science claptrap of the anti-science minorities, but they fall flat on their faces when trying to transmit a simple message from the peer reviewed literature. What's worse, the message they successfully conveyed is by a stark opponent against climate change while the headliner is an article suggesting alternative energy causes climate change. Fox News, if I "head desked" everytime you got something hopelessly wrong, I'd have brain damage that strongly correlates with the frequency in which I read your content.
Sources:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1505.html
http://grist.org/list/wind-farms-do-not-cause-climate-change/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/30/wind-farms-are-warming-earth-researchers-say/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/30/proof-global-warming-isnt-making-weather-wackier/
Hitler Liked Dogs. Do You?
I have been following the news of Heartland's ill judged ad campaign. I'd say ill judged only if you consider shooting yourself in the foot while it is in your mouth, ill judged. Didn't they learn anything from the not funny satirical 10:10 ads?
By pretty much suggesting that those who accept the science of global warming are like serial killers and terrorists they have managed to alienate supporters and funders alike. Drink giant Diageo who owns brands like Guinness, Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker and Moët & Chandon and gave Heartland $10,000 over the past two years say they have no plans to work with the Heartland Institute in the future. State Farm an insurance company has also announced that they were severing all ties with the Heartland Institute.This company gave $114,000 in 2010, $230,000 last year and $95,000 this year according to Heartland's leaked fund-raising plan. Ouch!
Donna Laframboise, author, climate skeptic and blogger had planned on attending Heartlands latest anti-climate change conference but stated 'my participation in the upcoming Heartland conference has now become untenable.' With her book being advertised on the same Heartland web page she believes her ' reputation has been harmed'. She also reports;
Helmer is still down to attend this Heartland conference as a breakfast speaker;
But Heartland's ads are really a reverse version of the Appeal to Authority. Choose someone who is noteworthy in some respect and use them to promote something unrelated. I can't see dairy farmers being too pleased to see this around the country;
Or, as the title of this post suggests, dog breeders liking this;
But to really show the absurdity and irrationality of this add campaign, suppose an environmental group had commissioned this;
By pretty much suggesting that those who accept the science of global warming are like serial killers and terrorists they have managed to alienate supporters and funders alike. Drink giant Diageo who owns brands like Guinness, Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker and Moët & Chandon and gave Heartland $10,000 over the past two years say they have no plans to work with the Heartland Institute in the future. State Farm an insurance company has also announced that they were severing all ties with the Heartland Institute.This company gave $114,000 in 2010, $230,000 last year and $95,000 this year according to Heartland's leaked fund-raising plan. Ouch!
Donna Laframboise, author, climate skeptic and blogger had planned on attending Heartlands latest anti-climate change conference but stated 'my participation in the upcoming Heartland conference has now become untenable.' With her book being advertised on the same Heartland web page she believes her ' reputation has been harmed'. She also reports;
'Ross McKitrick said in an a strongly-worded letter to Heartland yesterday:Perhaps more can be learned about the ethics and morals of those who appear to see nothing wrong with this sort of campaign. Enter stage left my Member of the European Parliament, Roger Helmer. He became an MEP on a Conservative ticket before defecting to the more extreme right UKIP party who has for a deputy leader Mad Monckton. Helmer has been mentioned on my blog before;
You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers.'
Who voted for this idiot?
Rape victims share responsibility for the crime!
Winds of Change?
Helmer is still down to attend this Heartland conference as a breakfast speaker;
"Breakfast - May 23, 2012: SPEAKER, Roger Helmer, European Parliament, Great Britain - $39.00 "By all accounts this insidious Ad campaign is no barrier to him giving his speech. According to Leo Hickman;
'He confirmed he was still attending, adding:So with Helmer and his conservative opinions in mind I thought I'd give Heartland a few suggestions for alternatives to their posters. This ones for Rog;
I am delighted that the Heartland campaign for the Chicago climate conference has succeeded in its purpose and attracted the attention of the Guardian.'
But Heartland's ads are really a reverse version of the Appeal to Authority. Choose someone who is noteworthy in some respect and use them to promote something unrelated. I can't see dairy farmers being too pleased to see this around the country;
Or, as the title of this post suggests, dog breeders liking this;
But to really show the absurdity and irrationality of this add campaign, suppose an environmental group had commissioned this;
Normal Service Has Been Resumed
After the hack at Steven Goddard Orwellian named 'Real Science' web site that resulted in no posts for several days, normal service has been resumed.
The latest post still rejects science and rationality. It still denies global warming is happening. It still promotes conspiracies including '“Global Warming” to scare the masses and make lots of money while controlling nations'.
The only real difference is that this post isn't from the guy who calls himself Steven Goddard, he still seems to have lost control of his domain, but by someone calling themselves Richard Garwin.
There is a rather eminent physicist called Richard Garwin, now 84 years old, and a Board member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, but this clearly isn't Goddard's hacker.
The post has received quite a lot of interest form Goddard's usual commenters but they seem unhappy with it for some reason and I can't quite put my finger on what it is. Perhaps this Richard Garwin is slightly more extreme in his conspiracy theories with talk of Elitists, Weather Control and UFOs, but it hardly makes less sense that Goddard's 'Birther' conspiracies for example. But what is assured is that their ability to think rationally remains just as impaired;
'Ano' suspects the hack could be down to the warmists;
Meanwhile, normal service has been resumed by Steve Goddard himself over at his old Worprdpress blog where his own anti-science, conspiracy theory nonsense continues.
Unfortunately so does the nonsense that the hack was an attack carried out by the warmists, 'ntesdorf' says:
All this despite Goddard's best efforts and continued claims that this incident has nothing to do with either. You really could not make this stuff up.
The latest post still rejects science and rationality. It still denies global warming is happening. It still promotes conspiracies including '“Global Warming” to scare the masses and make lots of money while controlling nations'.
The only real difference is that this post isn't from the guy who calls himself Steven Goddard, he still seems to have lost control of his domain, but by someone calling themselves Richard Garwin.
There is a rather eminent physicist called Richard Garwin, now 84 years old, and a Board member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, but this clearly isn't Goddard's hacker.
The post has received quite a lot of interest form Goddard's usual commenters but they seem unhappy with it for some reason and I can't quite put my finger on what it is. Perhaps this Richard Garwin is slightly more extreme in his conspiracy theories with talk of Elitists, Weather Control and UFOs, but it hardly makes less sense that Goddard's 'Birther' conspiracies for example. But what is assured is that their ability to think rationally remains just as impaired;
'Ano' suspects the hack could be down to the warmists;
I would suspect it might be a guy from Desmog Blog. This is their kind of thing'Dave Burton' agrees;
I suspect that the person impersonating Richard Garwin is a climate alarmist having some fun at skeptics’ expense.
Meanwhile, normal service has been resumed by Steve Goddard himself over at his old Worprdpress blog where his own anti-science, conspiracy theory nonsense continues.
Unfortunately so does the nonsense that the hack was an attack carried out by the warmists, 'ntesdorf' says:
Dirty tricks are all that the Warmists really know.And 'Rogelio' says:
I still think that that site was stolen because it is and was really doing major damage to the AGW. I cannot possibly contemplate any other reasonApparently it was even believed that Richard Garwin the physicist, was responsible for the hack, 'foxgoose' says;
Is he really a Board Member of the Union of Concerned Scientists?
Hilarious!
Obviously they’re a lot more “concerned” than we thought.
All this despite Goddard's best efforts and continued claims that this incident has nothing to do with either. You really could not make this stuff up.
Ruffled Feathers But No lessons Learned
My previous post on the flaws of Goddard's colouring in and counting project seems to have ruffled a few feathers. Within a few hours he made several posts on sea ice extent, but has not learned from his mistakes - in fact he keeps making the same errors over and over.
In this post he is still colouring in but he doesn't rotate the image this time - what was all that about?
And Mr Goddard now proudly states;
But he is still making the same mistakes. I hand you over to Peter Ellis, a real sceptic and someone who has noticed problems with Goddard's analysis and similar problems with this map as I did in my original post. This is his comment to Steven Goddard;
In this post he is still colouring in but he doesn't rotate the image this time - what was all that about?
And Mr Goddard now proudly states;
"My pixel counts agree with Cryosphere Today numbers, which show more excess ice in the Bering Sea, than missing ice in the Barents Sea."I am at a loss as to why he has gone to the trouble of repeating the same flawed exercise to try and get his pixel count to agree with Cryosphere Today. Why not just accept the information on Cryosphere Today? Perhaps because it doesn't suggest that the data "should be showing Arctic ice extent slightly above normal, for the first time in nearly ten years", his original and erroneous claim.
But he is still making the same mistakes. I hand you over to Peter Ellis, a real sceptic and someone who has noticed problems with Goddard's analysis and similar problems with this map as I did in my original post. This is his comment to Steven Goddard;
Peter Ellis says:Perhaps it is time Steven Goddard put his crayons away.
April 19, 2012 at 3:33 pm
You count does not agree with Cryosphere Today numbers, since they show a current overall area anomaly of -0.103 million sq km. You can’t just pick two regions and ignore the rest. As far as your pixel count goes, even by eye I can see you missed some pixels in the Greenland sea. But that omits a larger issue: the pixels that comprise the orange line itself. These (being the border of the ice) presumably are ice-covered in the historical mean data. Since we cannot see through the line, we do not know how many of them are ice-covered today. The orange line is several pixels wide and thousands of pixels long. Your count therefore has a minimum error of several thousand, which makes your entire exercise moot.
Regarding the NSIDC figure, the historical average line is not strictly shifted, it’s actually a subtly different shape, since it’s now based on a 5-day average rather than a 9-day average. If you look carefully you’ll see the line is now slightly less smooth.
What does that do to the overall shape? Well, after normalising and taking the current date as day 0, the April 16 graph shows the average of days (-6,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1-0,1,2) , while the April 18th graph shows the average of days (-4,-3,-2,-1,0). That is, there’s no “shift” in that both are centred on day -2, but there is a difference in the size of the smoothing window.
How does the inclusion of days -6,-5,1 & 2 affect the average? Not at all during parts of the year when the rate of gain or loss is ~ linear. However, during this part of the spring, melt is accelerating, and so days 1&2 are further below day -2 than days -6&-5 are above day -2. So, during this part of the year, the 9-day average will be fractionally lower than the 5-day average.
Taken together, that means that going from the 9-day average to the 5-day average, even when correctly centred, will cause the “average” line to rise fractionally. It’s how smoothing works. The reverse will hold true as the melt slows down in August/September, so as we approach the summer minimum the “new” line for the historical average will be fractionally lower than it was on last year’s graphs.
Another Look At Goddard's Graph Gaffs
Steve Goddard's inability to understand graph data has led to yet another Gaff on his part. He thinks he has discovered more wrong doing, this time by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.
He takes the Hi resolution map of Sea Ice Extent for the 17th of April 2012 and gets his colouring crayons out again to use a very inaccurate and unscientific method to measure the change in extent form the 1979 - 2000 average. Just like in any good comedy of errors he rather predictably gets it all wrong and the farce continues when he uses errant values support his insinuations of skulduggery. I'm certain a good comedy writer could make a whole series out of the errors and misinformation on 'Real Science'. Perhaps it could be call Goddard's Gaffs, featuring a bumbling shambolic character in front of a monitor trying to save the world from a secret shadowy cabal of men in black that don't actually exist.
Here is how Goddard gets it so wrong - again!
He takes the original map from the NSIDC web site;
And, for some reason turns it around, and gets colouring. To end up with the work of art here;
He then claims to count the red (ice loss) and the green (ice gain) and compare them. He states;
The first ting to notice is that the original image contains over 1.6 million pixels so I doubt very much if 603 pixels is going to be noticeable 'above normal'. But why isn't it showing at least normal?
Well it is all down to 2 gaffs by Goddard. The first is, like any good six year old when it comes to colouring in, they say within the lines, unfortunately they don't always reach the lines sometimes miss bits. Goddard does exactly that as can be seen here indicated by purple and yellow arrows;
To be honest this probably averages out with missing bits that should be either red or green but this is more like child's play than a 'scientific method' and he is only talking about 603 pixels after all.
The biggest error occurs due to his treatment of the orange 'extent line' itself. The NSIDC clearly indicate that the orange line in the extent image is the1979 to 2000 average extent. That means that the outside of the line is the outside of the extent and should be included as red in every red area. Goddard doesn't bother about any such details.
How much difference can such a thin line really make to Goddard's pixel count if he had done it correctly? When zoomed in on the original NSIDC image the orange line is about 5 pixels wide and it will be thousands of pixels long. That is many thousands of pixels that should have been included and would have offset Goddard's mighty 603 pixels 'above normal' even if he had done his colouring to the lines correctly.
Clearly Steve Goddard is wrong again and the Arctic Ice Extent should not be 'slightly above normal' and I would suggest that the graph above represents exactly where it should be.
He takes the Hi resolution map of Sea Ice Extent for the 17th of April 2012 and gets his colouring crayons out again to use a very inaccurate and unscientific method to measure the change in extent form the 1979 - 2000 average. Just like in any good comedy of errors he rather predictably gets it all wrong and the farce continues when he uses errant values support his insinuations of skulduggery. I'm certain a good comedy writer could make a whole series out of the errors and misinformation on 'Real Science'. Perhaps it could be call Goddard's Gaffs, featuring a bumbling shambolic character in front of a monitor trying to save the world from a secret shadowy cabal of men in black that don't actually exist.
Here is how Goddard gets it so wrong - again!
He takes the original map from the NSIDC web site;
And, for some reason turns it around, and gets colouring. To end up with the work of art here;
He then claims to count the red (ice loss) and the green (ice gain) and compare them. He states;
"The area of green is 3544 pixels, and the area of red is 2941 pixels."Which may well be correct, and then uses the difference, a whole 603 pixels to suggest that the sea ice extent must be that much above normal. He then presents the NSIDC graph here to say;
"The NSIDC graph should be showing Arctic ice extent slightly above normal, for the first time in nearly ten years.
Instead, the graph shows well below normal ice extent."
The first ting to notice is that the original image contains over 1.6 million pixels so I doubt very much if 603 pixels is going to be noticeable 'above normal'. But why isn't it showing at least normal?
Well it is all down to 2 gaffs by Goddard. The first is, like any good six year old when it comes to colouring in, they say within the lines, unfortunately they don't always reach the lines sometimes miss bits. Goddard does exactly that as can be seen here indicated by purple and yellow arrows;
To be honest this probably averages out with missing bits that should be either red or green but this is more like child's play than a 'scientific method' and he is only talking about 603 pixels after all.
The biggest error occurs due to his treatment of the orange 'extent line' itself. The NSIDC clearly indicate that the orange line in the extent image is the1979 to 2000 average extent. That means that the outside of the line is the outside of the extent and should be included as red in every red area. Goddard doesn't bother about any such details.
How much difference can such a thin line really make to Goddard's pixel count if he had done it correctly? When zoomed in on the original NSIDC image the orange line is about 5 pixels wide and it will be thousands of pixels long. That is many thousands of pixels that should have been included and would have offset Goddard's mighty 603 pixels 'above normal' even if he had done his colouring to the lines correctly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)