How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Avro]

Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered

By Steven Goddard UK Register
Published Friday 15th August 2008 10:02 GMT - source story is here
Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the “North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer”. Others predicted that the entire “polar ice cap would disappear this summer”.
The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year’s record minimum. Their data shows Arctic sea ice extent only 10 per cent greater than this date in 2007, and the second lowest on record. Here’s a smaller version of the graph:

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)’s troublesome ice graph
The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct. Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)

Ice at the Arctic: 2007 and 2008 snapshots
As you can see, ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer - with a large increase in the area north of Siberia. Also note that the area around the Northwest Passage (west of Greenland) has seen a significant increase in ice. Some of the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are surrounded by more ice than they were during the summer of 1980.


The 30 per cent increase was calculated by counting pixels which contain colors representing ice. This is a conservative calculation, because of the map projection used. As the ice expands away from the pole, each new pixel represents a larger area - so the net effect is that the calculated 30 per cent increase is actually on the low side.
So how did NSIDC calculate a 10 per cent increase over 2007? Their graph appears to disagree with the maps by a factor of three (10 per cent vs. 30 per cent) - hardly a trivial discrepancy.
What melts the Arctic?

The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn’t even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.
We know that Arctic summer ice extent is largely determined by variable oceanic and atmospheric currents such as the Arctic Oscillation. NASA claimed last summer that “not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming”. The media tendency to knee-jerkingly blame everything on “global warming” makes for an easy story - but it is not based on solid science. ®
Bootnote

And what of the Antarctic? Down south, ice extent is well ahead of the recent average. Why isn’t NSIDC making similarly high-profile press releases about the increase in Antarctic ice over the last 30 years?
The author, Steven Goddard, is not affiliated directly or indirectly with any energy industry, nor does he have any current affiliation with any university.

Arctic Ice melt media misinformation retracted

25 Aug 08
The Register reporter Steve Goddard is admitting today that his article last week on melting Arctic Sea Ice (Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered) is incorrect.
Too bad the damage has already been done.

In his article, Goddard claimed that National Snow and Ice Data Center plot of Arctic Sea Ice Extentwas wrong and that,

"The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn't even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss."

Today, Goddard is retracting the claim:
"... it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated."

But as Joe Romm at ClimateProgress points out it may be too little too late. Goddard's article has already caught fire in the climate denier-sphere with over 70 references to the story according to blog search engine Technorati, with titles like:

• Arctic Ice Grows 30 Per Cent In a Year
• The Global Warming Theory takes a hit
• Fishy Data From the Government
• Here’s another installment about the silliness of “global warming” as posited by politicians and “environmentalists”.
• Cooking the Books to Cook the Ice
• Global Warming is about global government and depopulation

Unless Goddard, or intrepid DeSmog readers, have the time to go out and urge bloggers to correct this latest misinformation, it will be popping up as yet another false piece of information on the true state of our planet and the realities of global warming for some time to come. And as the old adage goes , "If you repeat something long enough it eventually becomes true."

http://www.desmogblog.com/arctic-ice-melt-media-misinformation-retracted

:roll:

Oh and btw, quite a difference a week makes eh Walt old boy....looky below.

Compare it now with your wittle chart....

Run along now......

 

[mabudon]

Odd that I find it a tad shocking that misinformation would be retracted- I wonder how many other things that have been used in this discussion are worthy of same- I bet most of the stuff in bold sans-serif could probably use a similar treatment

 

[Tonington]

It's standard fare. It's up there with hundreds of other memes that get repeated ad nauseum once the blogosphere gets hold.

Similar treatment indeed Mab.

 

[Extrafire]

[...]


My p.s. was to Les. He was having problems accessing these websites in your links:

I helped him out. Maybe next time before you consider me a whiner, you can read and type more carefully:lol:

It was a bit confusing, since I hadn't seen any comments or complaints by Les (or anyone else) on the subject.

I will try to copy and paste more carefully.

No $hit ehh? Just because I argue for proven science, people assume I:
a) support Al Gore as a standard I fight on here to hold.
b) support Suzuki as a credible geo-scientist.
c) parrot the media bull crap simply because I don't agree with their pseudo-skeptic nonsense.

I'm sorry, but a skeptic would have long ago found the problems in the rhetoric and stodgy stats of Extrafire, Walter, Scott Free, and a few others that pop in to produce the Al Gore fallacy....

[...]

You slander me with your insinuations. When you and I first started sparing, lo these many months ago, I mentioned Gore and Suzuki, and you agreed with me that they were full of it. For that I praised your discrimination. I have never suggested that you support Gore or Suzuki. I have, in fact, noted your dedication to science. What I have a problem with is your fundementalist adherance to AGW dogma and your tendency to twist my words (or other peoples statements) into strawman arguments (the last refuge of those who know they are wrong but don't want to admit it.)

 

[Extrafire]

That's just more speculation.

Are you suggesting that it's possible that signficant new species of coral have evolved in a very short time? Or could?

Maybe that flew over your head, so I'll explain again. I never disputed that there haven't been larger swings in the climate than the current change afoot. I'm disputing what you said, that the past fluctuations that these corals have experienced were all larger than todays, which is not substantiated.

Did I say ALL temperature fluctuations in the recent geological past have been greater? If so that was a mistake on my part. The intention was to say that there have been much greater fluctuation than the current one and all those that I mentioned were greater.

The part I would tell my prof is that apparently one new finding is enough to doubt the trend, that plus your past assertions like:

"Instead they find corals thriving, or discover that bleaching is a natural response to changing temps where they're merely in the process of exchanging their symbiotic organisms".

One new reef does not pass the significance test, and certainly doesn't mean that coral reefs are thriving.

It means that one is very much thriving, and that one new finding contradicts the supposed trend. That doesn't mean that coral reefs are thriving, but it is enough to call into question any doomsday prediction.

What mindset would that be? Perhaps the mindset that has observed the threats in action? While you have read something in a website that you liked, and reprint it like it's the gospel? That you would find such comfort from that model and it's implications for reef communities is ironic. That you would reprint an article in part, while ignoring the part I have argued in the first place, well that's just standard Extrafire fare.

A dogmatic mindset.

 

[Extrafire]

[...]
You'd never call anyone else right? There's a few people like that here.


[...]

I'd never call anyone else a liar.:lol:

 

[gopher]

Walter's right wing hero McCain believes in global warming.

;-)

 

[Extrafire]

Yes I saw this a few months ago. But like temperatures, populations fluctuate (except for human pops). But, - http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html. So one group may be exploding in numbers when others dwindle. North America has only about 35% of them. But it is kinda neat that the number seems to have doubled from the approx. 12,000 since 1960.

I recall reading that Canada has 6 different Polar bear populations, of which one is declining and the rest are increasing. I've also read that the overall population has quintupled in the last half century.

Again, I fail to see a problem. They supposedly evolved 200,000 years ago which means as a species they've made it through a lot of major climate fluctuations. Even though we've been on a warming trend for the last couple hundred years, we're still much colder than the majority of the current interglacial, so they've made it through thousands of years of very warm climate.

 

[Extrafire]

[...]

Look at the thing about China's developments: why couldn't they learn from our mistakes and have started developing in a more ecologically sensitive way to begin with?

Because the technology to do so doesn't exist. They're ahead of us in some ways (people going to the olympics report they have electronic do-dads not available here. I also heard that they've developed a rechargeable battery that lasts 12 times as long as the best we have. I believe if they could do it better, they will, although that doesn't mean they won't do some things wrong in the meantime.

We HAVE been stupid and ignorant, we ARE being stupid and ignorant, so is there really a need to CONTINUE to be stupid and ignorant just for the sake of a few people being wealthy?

It isn't for the few. It's for the majority. If our technological economies collapse, the world collapses into poverty like we've never seen, with all the famines, plagues and wars that result.

 

[Extrafire]

Odd that I find it a tad shocking that misinformation would be retracted- I wonder how many other things that have been used in this discussion are worthy of same- I bet most of the stuff in bold sans-serif could probably use a similar treatment

AGW alarmists never retract, though they frequently should. Skeptics do, though they seldom need to.

Goddard explains:

In my most recent article in The Register, and also posted here on WUWT, I incorrectly speculated that NSIDC graphs appeared to show less growth in Arctic ice extent than had actually occurred. My calculations were based on counting ice pixels from Cryosphere Today maps. Since then, I have had further discussions with Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC and William Chapman at Cryosphere Today, to try to understand the source of the problem. Dr. Meier has confirmed that counting pixels provides a “good rough estimate” and that NSIDC teaches pixel counting to CU students as a way to estimate ice extent. William Chapman has confirmed that the projection used in CT maps is very close to what it appears and to what I had assumed it to be. It is an astronaut’s view from about 5,000 miles above the north pole.
What I have learned
In 2008, CT and NSIDC maps show excellent agreement - as can be seen in this video which overlays an August 14 NSIDC map on top of the August 14 CT map. The borders of ice extent are nearly identical in the two maps. (The videos show overlays of the two maps.)

[...]

The discrepancy occurred in August, 2007, when agreement between NSIDC and CT was not so good. The equivalent video from August 15, 2007 shows that the CT map was missing a significant amount of low concentration ice on the Canada/Alaska side. I have since confirmed from AMSR maps and NASA satellite photos that the NSIDC map is probably more accurate than the CT map.
The reason that CT provides their side-by-side image viewer is apparently to encourage visitors to make a visual comparison of two dates, which is exactly what myself and others here did when we observed the discrepancy vs. NSIDC graphs. The human brain is quite good at making estimates of relative areas from images, and pixel counting is nothing more than a way to quantify what has already been observed. Since writing The Register piece I have made adjustments to the CT pixel counts for map distortion, and as I expected that makes the discrepancy slightly larger.

[...]

Because CT maps showed less ice in 2007, the increase in 2008 ice extent appears to be much greater. There is little doubt now that the NSIDC reported ice growth is absolutely correct. But wasn’t the ice supposed to shrink this year due to an excess of “thin first-year ice?” In May, NSIDC’s mean forecast (based on previous year’s melt) was that Arctic ice extent would be 13% lower than last year. (NSIDC has more recently posted on their web site some reasons why they believe the May estimates didn’t work out.)

Much more to the article at http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/arctic-ice-growth-2008-how-much/#more-2648

 

[Extrafire]

....I would tend to agree with juan.

Ask Michael himself

 

[gopher]

Walter's all time hero Bush also believes in global warming.

 

[Extrafire]

Walter's right wing hero McCain believes in global warming.

;-)

This is news?

Everyone believes in global warming. Well maybe a very few don't, but everyone I know believes in global warming. So what's your point?


Oh, maybe you mean that MCain believes in anthropogenic global warming. If that's what you mean, then that's what you should say. Huge difference.

So McCain believes in anthropogenic global warming. This is news? It's been a major part of his platform for the whole nomination campaign. Again, what's your point?

Conservatives recognize that McCain has two major flaws; 1) He believes in AGW, and 2) He's very weak on illegal immigration. So he isn't a hero for conservatives, but they'll vote for him anyway because the alternative is so much worse.

Out of curiosity, where did you get the idea that he was Walters hero?

 

[Extrafire]

Walter's all time hero Bush also believes in global warming.

Yes, even GW believes in global warming. This is news? What's your point?

Oh, right, you mean anthropogenic global warming. You really need to make sure you don't leave out important words. Huge difference.

No, GW doesn't believe in AGW, but for political reasons he pretends to, as does Harper. Because so may people have been bamboozled by unscrupulous hucksters into believing it, politicians have to appear to be on board. The smarter ones (like Harper) play along while trying to limit the damage as much as possible so fools like you will be appeased.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think Bush is Walters all time hero?

Oh, right, you're just trolling.

 

[gopher]

"So what's your point?"

In case you hadn't noticed, Walter has made about a dozen anti global warming threads. All the same old sh*t that has been refuted with multiple dozens of proofs. No matter how many times we refute what he writes, he continues to spam the board with his tired nonsense.

Walter has defended those right wingers so it's a good bet they are his heroes even though they disagree with his refuted threads about GL.

 

[gopher]

"you're just trolling"


No, Walter is.

 

[Tonington]

It was a bit confusing, since I hadn't seen any comments or complaints by Les (or anyone else) on the subject.

Les commented in another thread that he couldn't get your link to work. The same thing was happening in this thread, hence my p.s.

You slander me with your insinuations. When you and I first started sparing, lo these many months ago, I mentioned Gore and Suzuki, and you agreed with me that they were full of it.

Right, you mentioned them, not me... It's not slander to re-state what has already been stated. I'm not the only one who notices cherry picking. I'm not the only one who compared what you have said and done to the hockey stick fiasco either.

Are you suggesting that it's possible that signficant new species of coral have evolved in a very short time? Or could?

Where did I say significant? I don't even know what you mean by that, not exactly well framed Extra.

Possible to evolve in a short time, most definitely.

Did I say ALL temperature fluctuations in the recent geological past have been greater?

Here is what was said:

LGilbert:
Funny, I was given to understand that some species are highly sensitive to temperature change of even fractions of degrees.

Extrafire quotes and responds:
Some people like you to believe that. Any species that is wouldn't have survived previous temperature fluctuations which were much greater than we're experiencing now.

I responded that this was a fallacy because, it assumes that any species alive today, would have to be unphased by small changes due to past changes which were larger, ignoring that thermal stress isn't due to the magnitude of change, but due to whatever thermal envelope a species can tolerate. It could be a very small change in some species, and very large in others. This is abundantly clear from the fossil record, and from what we know about the physiology of the animals here with us right now.

The second part where I said all was due to your choice of language. Had you said, "some of which were larger..." well then that's another ball of wax altogether.

In any event, you've been consistently wrong on matters ecological.

It means that one is very much thriving, and that one new finding contradicts the supposed trend. That doesn't mean that coral reefs are thriving, but it is enough to call into question any doomsday prediction.

One new finding does not contradict a trend. To even suggest such a thing shows how ignorant you are of anything related to statistical treatment. Ridiculous!

A dogmatic mindset.

What you call dogma, scientists call science. What you call a contradicted trend, a scientist would call a single observation.

 

[Avro]

Yes, even GW believes in global warming. This is news? What's your point?

Oh, right, you mean anthropogenic global warming. You really need to make sure you don't leave out important words. Huge difference.

No, GW doesn't believe in AGW, but for political reasons he pretends to, as does Harper. Because so may people have been bamboozled by unscrupulous hucksters into believing it, politicians have to appear to be on board. The smarter ones (like Harper) play along while trying to limit the damage as much as possible so fools like you will be appeased.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think Bush is Walters all time hero?

Oh, right, you're just trolling.

Oh, that's right, we are all stupid except you.:roll:

 

[Walter]

How the IPCC Portrayed a Net Positive Impact of Climate Change as a Negative

And it was done without uttering an untruth!
Arguably the most influential graphic from the latest IPCC report is Figure SPM.2 from the IPCC WG 2’s Summary for Policy Makers (on the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change). This figure, titled “Key impacts as a function of increasing global average temperature change”, also appears as Figure SPM.7 and Figure 3.6 of the IPCC Synthesis Report (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf). Versions also appear as Table 20.8 of the WG 2 report, and Table TS.3 in the WG 2 Technical Summary. Yet other versions are also available from the IPCC WG2’s Graphics Presentations & Speeches, as well as in the WG 2’s “official” Power Point presentations, e.g., the presentation at the UNFCCC in Bonn, May 2007 (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/pr-ar4-2007-05-briefing-bonn.htm).
Notably the SPMs, Technical Summary, Synthesis Report, and the versions made available as presentations are primarily for consumption by policy makers and other intelligent lay persons. As such, they are meant to be jargon-free, easy to understand, and should be designed to shed light rather than to mislead even as they stay faithful to the science.
Let’s focus on what Figure SPM.2 tells us about the impacts of climate change on water.
The third statement in the panel devoted to water impacts states, “Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.” If one traces from whence this statement came, one is led to Arnell (2004). [Figure SPM.2 misidentifies one of the sources as Table 3.3 of the IPCC WG 2 report. It ought to be Table 3.2. ]
What is evident is that while this third statement is correct, Figure SPM.2 neglects to inform us that water stress could be reduced for many hundreds of millions more — see Table 10 from the original reference, Arnell (2004). As a result, the net global population at risk of water stress might actually be reduced. And, that is precisely what Table 9 from Arnell (2004) shows. In fact, by the 2080s the net global population at risk declines by up to 2.1 billion people (depending on which scenario one wants to emphasize)!
And that is how a net positive impact of climate change is portrayed in Figure SPM.2 as a large negative impact. The recipe: provide numbers for the negative impact, but stay silent on the positive impact. That way no untruths are uttered, and only someone who has studied the original studies in depth will know what the true story is. It also reminds us as to why prior to testifying in court one swears to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008...itive-impact-of-climate-change-as-a-negative/

 

[Extrafire]

"So what's your point?"

In case you hadn't noticed, Walter has made about a dozen anti global warming threads. All the same old sh*t that has been refuted with multiple dozens of proofs. No matter how many times we refute what he writes, he continues to spam the board with his tired nonsense.

Actually no, he hasn’t been refuted, you have. And he continues to add more articles to continue to refute you. If you find it so tiresome, don’t read it.

Walter has defended those right wingers so it's a good bet they are his heroes even though they disagree with his refuted threads about GL.

I can’t say that I’ve read every post Walter has made, so I don’t know for certain, but I’ve not seen one post where he defends either of them. Your words indicate to me that you have no reason to consider them his heroes; you’re just trying to smear him with an association that doesn’t exist. Rather pathetic attempt, really.