WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #5

Posted on by

“WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #5“. Steven Goddard tries to explain that “not much has changed during the last two weeks.” Well, other than the fact that Arctic Sea Ice Extent continues to track well below “normal”. But as we learned a few days ago, Steven has decided that the conventional climatologists were right and Sea Ice Extent doesn’t mean much. Mainly because the evidence isn’t proving useful to him. He’s also very quiet about Arctic Sea Ice Volume.

Still there’s always the Catlin Arctic Survey to mock. They’ve finally arrived at the North Pole, those wimps.

Steven tries to change the subject and talk about some cherry-picked trends from the first half of the 20th Century. Suddenly 1938 is the magical date. Good luck.

5 thoughts on “WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #5”

  2. Well, there’s always Venus isn’t there Mr Goddard? Throw out some more crazy theories to distract the mob.

    Seriously, why this strange obsession with this one variable?

    Reply ↓

    • BTW – just lodged this in Goddard’s latest train-wreck –

      You live less than 1200 km from Death Valley. Can Hansen tell the temperature at your house using a thermometer in Death Valley? LOL “acceptable scientific technique.”

      Erm – it is the anomalies not the absolute temperature that correlate over large distances. That is – if it is 1C above the local average here it is likely to be a similar amount warmer within a 1200km radius. The local absolute temperature is utterly irrelevant. This is fundamental to how GISTEMP works and is based on meticulous research, first documented in Hansen and Lebedeff 1987. From the abstract…

      The temperature changes at mid- and high latitude stations separated by less than 1000km are shown to be highly correlated. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html

      Always best to get your facts straight on an award-winning science site eh?

      Reply ↓

  3. Goddard’s new goalposts look even lamer, referencing a doctored junkscience.com graph.

    Not surprisingly, the graph ends at 2004, a relatively cool Arctic year. There were some off the chart warm Arctic years after that left previous years in the dust (64-90N). It claims to get the data from:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts.txt

    but the graph (along with the additional doctoring and funny commentary) doesn’t quite match (could only be a raw anomaly value difference).

    Also, If I’m reading that right, the data only represents land temperatures in the Arctic, which is a fairly limited area. This junkscience move I’m sure is by design, since the Land-Ocean data linked from GISS shows the 1938 value falling short of 2003. Every single year from 2005-2009 was warmer.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt

    Reply ↓

Leave a comment