Posts Tagged Goddard

I felt the chill before the winter came Gareth Renowden Oct 21

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

Being keen on accuracy in all things, I feel I should draw the attention of the readers of Hot Topic to a prediction failure. Back in August, in a post called Arctic Sea Ice Forecast: It’s going to be tough to stay cool, I made a number of predictions about how the climate crank echo chamber would respond to the record-breaking Arctic sea ice summer minimum that was then on its way. A number of those predictions came to pass, as this recent accounting demonstrates, but I made some longer term predictions that we can now examine.

Here’s what I wrote on August 12:

When the re-freeze starts, and the Arctic basin is covered in ice once more (early December), Anthony Watts will report on the record rate of ice formation, calling it a “stunning recovery“.

I wish to apologise to Mr Watts, because I got both the timing of his statement and his precise words wrong. Here’s what he said in a post dated October 18 – Sea Ice News Volume 3 Number 15 – Arctic refreeze fastest ever:

After all of the news about a minimum record ice extent last month, this is interesting. As we know when water loses its ice cover, it allows a lot of heat to radiate into space as LWIR. many predictied that as a result of the extra open ocean surface, we see a very fast refreeze in the Arctic. It appears they were right. In fact, this is the fastest monthly scale refreeze rate in the NSIDC satellite record going back to 19791. [My emphasis]

He couldn’t wait until December before commenting on the freeze-up, but perhaps he’s saving the phrase “stunning recovery” for later use — or leaving it for his friend Steven Goddard, who has been exploring novel metrics for the autumn freeze. Sorry, Anthony.

[Elvis Costello]

  1. Copied and pasted from µWatts, so the typos are his.

Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared – it’s the Silly Season! Gareth Renowden Sep 23

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

In early August I posted my predictions for the “sceptical” response to the record sea ice minimum. Time to call myself to account. I had planned to do my own analysis, but John Mason at Skeptical Science has done such an excellent job of ploughing through the mountains of bullshit that I asked his permission to repost his comprehensive scorecard here…

The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is. Winston Churchill, 1916.

Late summer has long been known in media circles as the Silly Season, when any old story, embellished a bit here and a bit there, is trundled out to fill column space normally occupied by the graver matters of politics and business.

In the world of climate science, late summer is of course rather more important, marking the peak of the annual sea-ice melting season of the Northern Hemisphere, and this year has been extraordinary, with the canary in the coal mine tweeting louder than ever that something is seriously amiss with the climate.

With Arctic sea-ice having reached a record low extent, area and volume, several weeks ahead of the usual end-of-melt date, the Blogosphere has been ablaze with lengthy discussions of this event and its potential and worrisome ramifications. There have also been mass-outbreaks of denial accompanied by varying degrees of silliness, as one might expect when faced with an event like a record Arctic melt-out. Many commentators could see the meltdown approaching, both in the Arctic and around parts of the Blogosphere, with Gareth Renowden over at Hot Topic speculating in early August as follows:

“When Arctic sea ice area sets a new record low in the next couple of weeks, the usual suspects will say: “You can’t trust area, sea ice extent is the only valid metric“.

When Arctic sea ice extent sets a new record low in September, the following arguments will be run in parallel:

1) There will be a frantic search for a definition of extent in which a new record was not set

2) There will be a complaint that the satellite record has been blighted by the failure of a sensor and the calibrations needed to get a new sensor in operation have corrupted the record

3) It will be claimed that it was all caused by the major Arctic storm that hit in August, and thus can’t be attributed to global warming

4) It’s cyclical — it’s all happened before, in the 1930s, and is therefore nothing unusual

5) That it’s irrelevant, because it’s not global and not happening where anyone lives so can’t possibly matter.

When the sea ice extent and area anomalies blow out to record levels in early October because of the delayed freeze-up, there will be silence.

When the re-freeze starts, and the Arctic basin is covered in ice once more (early December), Anthony Watts will report on the record rate of ice formation, calling it a “stunning recovery“.”

They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. Winston Churchill, 1936.

How closely did Gareth’s predictions above conform to the reality on the media airwaves? In this post-minimum-declared Blogosphere round-up, we take a light-hearted look.

In terms of searching for definitions of extent that failed to break the record (prediction #1), one set of data became increasingly popular in fake-sceptic circles – the IMS data. However, in clutching at this particular straw, its eager proponents overlooked a rather important point: IMS (acronym for Interactive Multisensor Snow and Ice Mapping System) is specifically intended for marine navigation, not climate monitoring, purposes. The eminently sensible idea is to map as much ice as possible as accurately as possible each day and week in support of ships (particularly DoD ships) operating in and near ice-covered waters. As a consequence, areas with too low an ice concentration to show up as extent on the NSIDC, DMI or JAXA dataplots are very sensibly counted as icy because of the potential hazard to boats not equipped to sail through such waters. In other words, IMS is an orange in amongst a basket of apples. Or (false balance alert), as IMS fan Steve Goddard put it in his so-called ‘Real Science’ blog on August 25th:

“The National Ice Center is in the business of being accurate and saving lives, while [the University of] Bremen is in the business of obtaining global warming grant money.”

That is a comment that needs no further comment from me. Meanwhile, evidently unflattered by such favouritism, the IMS dataset went on to take a nosedive all of its own and broke its record in early September:

Prediction #2 gained relatively little traction but maybe that was because prediction #3 – blaming the situation on the cyclonic windstorm that occurred in early August – was so easy to run with. But hold on a moment. The melt-rate prior to the storm was such that a record was inevitable anyway – the storm only increased melt-rates for a few days.

Furthermore, whilst such storms are indeed uncommon, the early August gale was not an unprecedented event. Who says so? Paul A. Newman, chief scientist for Atmospheric Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, estimates that there have been about eight storms of similar strength during the month of August in the last 34 years of satellite records. And there’s a second factor: ice-quality (an often overlooked parameter), Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA, commented, “decades ago, a storm of the same magnitude would have been less likely to have as large an impact on the sea ice, because at that time the ice cover was thicker and more expansive.” Indeed. Two metre-thick robust pack-ice is a lot harder to disintegrate than the thin, slushy rubbish that this year’s storm had at its disposal. In summary, yes the storm was a minor factor in the magnitude by which the record was broken, but only because the ice was already in such a poor state. An impressive record minimum would have occurred, storm or no storm.

Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have entered upon a period of danger… Winston Churchill, 1936.

With regard to prediction #4, we had John Christy making claims about low minima in the late 1930s-early 1940s (the lowest minimum, in 1940, was in fact approximately 9.8 million square kilometres as opposed to 3.4 million square kilometres in 2012), although he didn’t get too specific, perhaps for obvious reasons. He was paraphrased by a Sunday Times journalist thus: “anecdotal and other evidence suggesting similar melts from 1938-43 and on other occasions”. Skeptical Science posted a detailed debunking of Christy’s claims early this September.

However, as with many such claims that appear in the media, they tend to spread, like a bad cold. The quote below is transcribed from a BBC Newsnight discussion (about Arctic sea-ice, complete with all the familiar graphics), broadcast on September 5th, in which UK Conservative MP Peter Lilley took part. As readers can see, he managed to slip in Christy’s claim, but for some reason he tagged it to the wrong end of the planet. However, he also brought in something that was not predicted by Gareth, or anyone else for that matter. Take a look:

“you have presented something which purports to be new evidence that contains nothing new, which is tendentious, not peer-reviewed, by a well known alarmist and absolute bunkum compared with the IPCC….the IPCC says sea ice is predicted to shrink in the Arctic and Antarctic under all scenarios and in some projections Arctic sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st Century. They then present a graph of all the different projections and none of them show it is melting before the year 2070 on a regular basis in the summer. Now of course it used to melt from time to time in the Thirties when it was much warmer in the Antarctic. So you’ve got a very tendentious piece of presentation there by someone who’s disagreeing with the IPCC’s science.”

Whoever would have thought of that as a tactic – if events prove worse than IPCC projections, then go with what the IPCC said! What will they think of next? Especially when the self same Peter Lilley, writing in the Wall Street Journal in December 2009, opined:

“The whole U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process could not be better designed to institutionalize groupthink on a global scale.”

Is this the same person here? Anyway, onwards.

How about advancing the “it not being a global effect” (prediction #5) argument? One word: Antarctica. Suddenly, every fake-skeptic worth his or her salt had their eyes fixed on this gigantic ice-cube sat atop a pole-straddling continent surrounded by ocean. Note here that, in drastic contrast, the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents – the dynamics are completely different. To continue however: as luck would have it, there was a new paper to talk about on climate change in the West Antarctic Peninsula, largely based upon hydrogen isotope values from an important new ice-core (post and discussion at Realclimate).

The findings were also discussed at the Watts Up With That (WUWT) website. For anybody unfamiliar with the site, it endlessly trots out wild hostility to the notion that global warming, as a consequence of the reckless burning of fossil fuels, is a serious threat to mankind – despite what the science says. So, how went the discussion? Site host Anthony Watts commenced with:

“Regarding that rapid warming of 2C in the last 50 years, just remember that most weather stations in the Antarctic are near humanity, and humanity requires warmth to survive. For example [photo, annotated in purplish we assume by Watts]:

….and finished with:

The Antarctic peninsula is the most populated place in Antarctica.”

That was it, verbatim. A bit short, but there we are, left to draw our own conclusions. So what are we to make of it? Was Anthony Watts seriously trying to tell us that the West Antarctic Peninsula suffers from an Urban Heat Island effect because a few hundred scientists hang out down there? The photo he used appeared to show a temporary field camp, something akin to the Everest Base Camp and hardly urban in nature. Whereabouts was it? And what does it have to do with a long-term temperature reconstruction based upon hydrogen isotopes from an ice-core? All very mysterious.

However, following the usual stream of comments (general and unending theme = ‘those darned warmistas are at it again’), an important clarification was posted, which we reproduce here in full:


I guess I owe the world a humble apology for personally contributing so much to the urban heat island in Antarctica, and hence to misinterpreted climate records.

The badly sited meteorological screen in your photo is at an Australian summer camp in the Northern Prince Charles Mountains, near Mt Jacklyn – in the background. Temperatures measured here were for local information of pilots and field parties only – it is useful to have an idea of how many layers of clothes to put on before exiting your Antarctic shelter. Temperatures here were only measured for less than 2 months over a couple of seasons and have NEVER been used for any climate record.

This photo was taken in the 1988/89 austral summer when I, and a colleague Andy, lived in the UNHEATED shelter nearest to the meteorological station. I didn’t realise that I was so hot that my body heat could influence temperatures measured on the Antarctic Peninsula, thousands of kilometres away. It must have been Andy!!!


A little geographical research shows the location of this interesting area of East Antarctica:

Thanks to Ian for clearing that one up!

It would be unfair to omit the fact that Antarctic sea-ice extent has been high, impressively so if certain blogs are to be believed. Beware! During the current, about-to-end Southern Hemisphere winter, it peaked at about 19.4 million km2, after a minimum of about 5 million last summer. Some people seem easily impressed. The 1979-2000 average maximum is around 18.5 million km2. In the Arctic, the maximum has remained this past 30 years at 13.5 million to 14.8 million km2, but the minimum this year is 3.4 million km2, against a 1979-2000 average of approximately 6.75 million km2. That seems to me a rather more substantial figure. It has involved a meltdown of over ten million square kilometres of sea-ice, leaving just three and a half million behind. (addendum 22/09/12: Tamino has covered the Arctic-Antarctic difference in far more detail here.)

So – back to the Northern Hemisphere, and coincidentally, the declaration of a record Arctic sea-ice extent (August 26th) came in a week where the American Meteorological Society released a statement about climate change on August 27th, in which the concluding remarks sum up the situation as follows:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.

Watts’ take on that?

“Seems almost a planned effort this week, Sea Ice, [Hurricane] Isaac, and now the AMS statement.”

As Scotty of Star Trek fame would have said – ‘Ye cannae change the laws of physics.’

How about the other arguments that Gareth missed? One I did hear reported over at Neven’s Arctic sea-ice blog was the claim that 450 more cubic kilometers of ice volume went away in 2010 (18,974 km3) than have so far this year (18,523km3), meaning – wait for it – that the ice is in “recovery”. Now then. If I were to melt a whole ice-cube in 2011 and then melt a half ice-cube in 2012 then I’d have melted less ice in 2012 but still have ended up with nothing. Fail.

Another one getting an airing runs along these lines:

“The Earth’s surface area is about 510 million square kilometres. The Arctic ice extent at it’s [sic] minimum is currently around 3 million square kilometres. So we’re talking about 0.6% of the area.”

Anyone spot the flaws with this? Firstly, Arctic sea-ice is a feature specific to water. Secondly, it’s not the extent after melting, but before that is important, because it is the difference between the two that represents the amount of albedo-loss over the planet’s waters, albedo being the proportion of incoming solar energy that is reflected by a surface (as opposed to being absorbed) during, in this case, the Arctic summer.

The surface area of Earth that is water-covered is approximately 361,132,000 square kilometres. Last March, the Arctic sea-ice maximum was approximately 14,440,000 square kilometres. Doing the maths:

(14,440,000/361,132,000) x 100 = 3.998%

So that’s almost 4% of the surface area of Earth’s water over which the albedo value can undergo dramatic change. Albedo is expressed in values between 0 and 1; snow-covered sea-ice has an albedo of 0.9, bare sea ice has an albedo of 0.5 and open sea water has an albedo of 0.06. That means that snow-covered sea-ice only lets 10% of incoming solar radiation through into the water; bare sea-ice lets about half through but open water lets a whopping 94% of incoming solar energy in. This year, the drop in Arctic sea-ice extent has been from a high of 14.44 million sq km to a low of 3.4 million sq km – a loss of over 75% of that useful high-albedo area. So forget about 0.6% – it is a meaningless figure!

But perhaps the last word can be awarded to Dr Judith Curry of the blog Climate etc, in an interview with Yale Environment 360 on August 30th:

“I don’t think this apparent record sea ice minimum is of particular significance in our understanding of climate variability and change of Arctic sea ice.”

What a strange choice of words. Apparent record? The National Snow and Ice Data Center (and these guys know what they’re talking about – it’s their job) had confirmed the record had gone in a press release four days previously. Eye off the ball, maybe? Who knows? For now, let’s use a couple of images to explore this choice of vocabulary:

L: an ‘apparent’ tornado; R: an ‘apparent’ hurricane.

Now, can anybody tell me what is ‘apparent’ about this sea ice minimum record (below)?

I’d say that was in-your face, don’t mess with me, full-on record meltdown, myself.

Now that the minimum has passed we enter the long darkness of the Arctic winter. The sea surface will once again start to refreeze. There should be a final maximum extent by mid-March 2013 of, as consistently recorded over recent decades, 13.5 to 14.8 million square kilometres, at least 10 million km2 of which will be thin, melt-prone first-year sea-ice. As to next year’s melt season? In this particular case, the models have struggled – they have underestimated the meltdown, as the graph below, borrowed from Neven’s Arctic sea-ice blog, demonstrates. However, NSIDC Arctic specialist, Dr Julienne Stroeve, in a recent Guardian interview, commented:

“We can expect more summers like 2012 as the ice cover continues to thin. The loss of summer sea ice has led to unusual warming of the Arctic atmosphere, that in turn impacts weather patterns in the northern hemisphere, that can result in persistent extreme weather such as droughts, heatwaves and flooding.”

The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. Winston Churchill, 1936.

To conclude, for most of the media world, late summer is the silly season. Unfortunately, in some parts of the blogosphere, it appears to have become a permanent state of affairs! But there’s one final prediction of Gareth’s remaining to be confirmed. Will a ‘Stunning Recovery’ be widely announced as we head into winter 2012-13 and the sea refreezes, as it is supposed to? For the answer to that, only time will tell.

Wrapped up in books: Don Easterbrook drags Elsevier through the mud Gareth Renowden Oct 30

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

Don Easterbrook, the retired geology professor with an unhealthy obsession about Greenland ice cores, is back. His latest book, the punchily titled Evidence-Based Climate Science – Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming, was published last month by Elsevier, “the world’s leading provider of science and health information” (they publish The Lancet, Grey’s Anatomy, and are part of the same group as the publishers of New Scientist). Don has penned an introduction, the opening chapter, and contributed to a couple of others, but he leaves the rest of the book to a hand-picked team of “leading climate scientists”. Here’s how the Elsevier blurb describes the book’s “key features”:

  • An unbiased, evidence-based analysis of the scientific data concerning climate change and global warming
  • Authored by 8 of the world’s leading climate scientists, each with more than 25 years of experience in the field
  • Extensive analysis of the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its role in global warming
  • Comprehensive citations, references, and bibliography
  • Adaptation strategies are presented as alternative reactions to greenhouse gas emission reductions

Regular readers will know that I have been following Don’s career as a climate expert with some interest, having caught him out stealing and altering other people’s work, misrepresenting the Greenland ice core evidence, and generally behaving in a manner unbecoming of a would-be distinguished academic. Imagine my surprise therefore when a little digging into the contents of Evidence-Based Climate Science (EBCS) showed that every one of the key features being trumpeted by Elsevier appears to be a gross misrepresentation of the content of the book. Let’s dig a little deeper…

This is how Elsevier — “the world’s leading provider of science information”, remember — describes the content:

Global warming and human-induced climate change are perhaps the most important scientific issues of our time. These issues continue to be debated in the scientific community and in the media without true consensus about the role of greenhouse gas emissions as a contributing factor.

Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming objectively gathers and analyzes scientific data concerning patterns of past climate changes, influences of changes in ocean temperatures, the effect of solar variation on global climate, and the effect of CO2 on global climate to clearly and objectively present counter-global-warming evidence not embraced by proponents of CO2.

Unfortunately, reading those parts of the book that are available online1 shows that the book is far from being an objective analysis of anything to do with climate science.

But who are Don’s co-authors? The Elsevier page gives nothing away, and their free sample chapter, Evidence for Synchronous Global Climatic Events: Cosmogenic Exposure Ages of Glaciations is credited to Easterbrook and John Gosse, Cody Sherard, Ed Evenson and Robert Finkel. Fine scientists though these friends and former students of Don might be, they are not leading climate scientists. It took a while, but eventually I laid hands on a copy of the table of contents, and I nearly fell off my chair.


The world’s leading provider of science information is trying to persuade us that former µWatts blogger Steven Goddard2, potty peer Christopher Monckton, sea level rise crank Nils-Axel Mörner, meteorologist and µWatts regular Joe D’Aleo and Aussie David Archibald are somehow “leading climate scientists”. Even the chapter authors who are, or could be loosely described as working in climate science, are figures from well out of the mainstream — William Gray, Phil Klotzbach, and Nicola Scafetta.

As far as the contents are concerned, a cursory glance at Easterbrook’s offerings confirm that he’s still running the same old Greenland ice core misrepresentations: Figures 24 and 25, for instance, show that he’s still referring to 1855 temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as “present temperatures”3 He also repeats his egregious error about England and wine growing — he states “wine grapes were grown as far north as England where growing grapes is now not feasible”4, which will be news to the expanding English (and Welsh) wine business.

Editorial standards are no higher elsewhere in the book. Goddard is given a chapter on Arctic sea ice5 and one on 2010′s record temperatures. In the latter, he manages to libel NASA and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies by stating that Arctic temperatures are fabricated in the GISS global temperature series. Mörner’s chapters amount to little more than a restatement of his claim that sea levels at the Maldives are not rising — despite the fact that his original 2004 paper was so bad that it attracted no fewer than three rapid rebuttals in the literature.

If EBCS were just another in the long line of climate sceptic compilations of blog posts and self-published essays, cobbled together by a right wing press or well-funded US think tank, all of this would be par for the course. But EBCS is published under the Elsevier imprimatur — an addition to their atmospheric sciences list, priced at US$119.95. In academic publishing, Elsevier has a long and enviable record, and a fine list of titles. Yet somehow it has allowed Easterbrook to get away with a book replete with errors, misrepresentations and statements that border on libellous. Let’s review the “key features” of EBCS, as featured in their blurb.

  • An unbiased, evidence-based analysis of the scientific data concerning climate change and global warming

Unbiased? Let me quote Easterbrook’s introduction:

With no unequivocal, ’smoking gun’, cause-and-effect evidence that CO2 caused the 1977 – 1998 global warming, and despite the media blitz over the 2007 IPCC report, no tangible physical evidence exists that CO2 is causing global warming. Computer climate models assume that CO2 is the cause and computer model simulations are all based on that assumption.

Easterbrook completely ignores the well-established physics of carbon dioxide. That doesn’t count as a lack of bias, it demonstrates aggressive ignorance and a complete lack of objectivity. That any academic publisher would allow him to so misrepresent the underlying science beggars belief.

  • Authored by 8 of the world’s leading climate scientists, each with more than 25 years of experience in the field

It’s not clear to me who these 8 paragons might be. Easterbrook himself doesn’t qualify as a “leading climate scientist”. Perhaps Elsevier believes that Steven Goddard fits that bill. If so, it is on its own.

  • Extensive analysis of the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its role in global warming

A chapter by Monckton! A fringe UK politician and puzzle designer is the best they can do?

  • Comprehensive citations, references, and bibliography

There is a long list of of references. A lot of them to blog posts by the usual suspects. Not what one might expect in a weighty academic tome.

  • Adaptation strategies are presented as alternative reactions to greenhouse gas emission reductions

It’s not obvious from the table of contents where that material can be found in the book.

We are left with a major and well-respected academic publisher giving free reign to Easterbrook’s fantastical view of climate reality. Did no critical eye read the material before it was published? Was there no-one at Elsevier who thought that fact-checking Easterbrook might be a good idea? Did a manager make the sordid calculation that letting a few lies through the net might be good for business? Or was the editor of the atmospheric sciences list simply clueless and naive? Whatever the truth, Evidence-Based Climate Science – Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming contains precious little evidence and less real science.

[Belle & Sebastian, perhaps a homage to Sir Clifford?]

  1. Amazon provides a “Look Inside” preview of most of Easterbrook’s introduction and opening chapter, and brief glimpses of other sections of the book. A pdf that appears to be more or less the same as his opening chapter is available at Scribd. Both of Mörner’s chapters have been scanned and made available at the NZ CSC website. Chapter Two is available as a sample chapter at the Elsevier site.
  2. Goddard is chiefly memorable for his sequence of posts about Arctic sea ice at µWatts, culminating in a remarkable post in which he got a trend calculation spectacularly wrong. Shortly afterwards, Watts banned Goddard, making him that rare thing – a µWatts writer who failed to live up to AW’s standards. He has since set up his own blog, laughably titled Real Science.
  3. They were figures 4 and 5 in his January µWatts essay which purported to show that most of the last 10,000 years had been warmer than today. See
  4. p26
  5. Not available on the web as far as can I see, though I shudder to think what it might contain.

Buffoons in arms: Goddard joins Monckton at SPPI Gareth Renowden Oct 30

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

Oh frabjous day! Steven Goddard is joining “potty peer” Christopher, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley as one of the slithy toves contributing to the Science and Public Policy Institute‘s never-ending stream of climate denier propaganda, and on the evidence of his first “paper” he will be a valuable* addition to the team. The SPPI pantheon is in dire need of a fillip, given Monckton’s lacklustre recent performance (of which more later), and so Goddard is given his head to produce a truly wondrous counterblast to the recent NOAA 2010 Arctic Report CardTo a geologist, ’the past is key to the future’. To give you a flavour of his wisdom, here are Goddard’s conclusions:

  1. The widespread belief that the poles are rapidly melting down is incorrect, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere.
  2. Arctic temperatures are cyclical. Much of the Arctic has been warmer during the last 100 years.
  3. The satellite record from 1979-2010 coincided with the warm phase of the PDO. It covers less than one half of an Arctic temperature cycle. Given this cyclical behavior, it makes little scientific sense to extrapolate linearly based on a time period which is too short. Until satellites record at least one entire Arctic cycle, the extrapolations are misleading.
  4. There is little (if any) evidence linking recent changes in the Arctic to CO2. At this point there is no solid reason to believe we are seeing anything other than natural Arctic cycles. Greenland temperatures are cooler than 70 years ago.

Great stuff. Either completely wrong, not supported by the evidence or pure wishful thinking. Positively Moncktonian in its cavalier disregard for the facts, but lacking the great man’s prolix delivery and intellectual turgidity…

Followers of events in the Arctic will know Goddard as the erstwhile author of numerous and inventive “sea ice updates” at Anthony Watts’ µWatts blog — a man with an amazing ability to conjure cooling out of nothing. A few months ago an obdurate Goddard appears to have strained the patience of the saintly Watts and he departed to set up his own blog called, with no apparent hint of irony, Real Science.

To illustrate just how far Goddard’s SPPI opus stays from reality, let’s consider his claim that “Greenland temperatures are cooler than 70 years ago“. To arrive at this conclusion he chooses two Greenland temperature stations from the NASA GISTEMP dataset (Godthab Nuuk and Angmagssalik), plots their annual averages over the last 100 years, finds two periods of warming, and then — after long detours around sea ice and CO2 — declares that Greenland has cooled over the last 70 years. Cherry-picking at its finest…

What does the NOAA Arctic Report Card have to say about current Greenland temperatures?

A clear pattern of exceptional and record-setting warm air temperatures is evident at long-term meteorological stations around Greenland. For instance:

Nuuk (64.2°N along Greenland’s west coast): Year 2010 summer, spring, and winter 2009/2010 were the warmest on record since record keeping began in 1873.

Temperature records were being set all round Greenland during the last year, leading to a record ice melt season: the area of the ice sheet that melted was 8% greater than the previous record, set in 2007, and melt continued for much longer than usual:

The melt duration was as much as 50 days greater than average in areas of west Greenland that had an elevation between 1200 and 2400 meters above sea level.

The obvious disconnect between Goddard’s reporting and the real state of Greenland goes a long way to suggest why he was dropped by Watts, and it says just as much about SPPI’s decision to run his material. To paraphrase former NZ prime minister Rob Muldoon, Goddard’s move has raised the average IQ at both places…

Meanwhile, followers of the antics of Monckton will be puzzled by the poor quality of his recent output, and mystified by his inability to carry the floor at a recent debate in Cork. The peer’s attempted rebuttal of the dismemberment of his testimony to Congress earlier this year is thin stuff, long on words (of course) but woefully short of substance.

Slightly meatier is his attempt to debunk a recent keynote address given by Obama’s science adviser John Holdren in Oslo in September. Here’s a chunk of classic Monckton:

On go the lurid scares. ’Melting permafrost’ is next. The fact that many of the burial grounds of the Vikings around the Hvalsey settlement are still under permafrost to this day, when they were certainly not under permafrost when the bodies were buried, is conveniently overlooked.

This is a claim that has popped up in a number of Monckton’s articles, and one that’s often repeated by sceptics who want to pretend that conditions in Greenland are not unusual. Unfortunately, as is so often the case when you look into the details, it turns out that Monckton is talking nonsense. The Citizen’s Challenge blog decided to do some exhumation of the facts, and got in touch with a few experts who know the Hvalsey site well. Here’s what Georg Nyegaard, curator of the Greenland National Museum & Archives had to say:

I know the site of the Hvalsey Fjord Church very well — was the curator of the nearby museum of Qaqortoq for 12 years. You are completely right about your doubts: There is absolutely no permafrost at this site.

I look forward to Monckton’s retraction and apology for so grievously misleading his readers, but history suggests I would not be wise to hold my breath while waiting. But Monckton isn’t finished with permafrost. Here’s his next sentence:

In fact, melting permafrost is nothing but a good thing: despite the lurid tales of methane trapped in the permafrost and waiting to erupt and give the planet a fever, methane is really a non-issue now that the Russian pipeline to Europe has been repaired. There has been no noticeable increase in atmospheric methane since the repairs were completed in the year 2000. If the permafrost were to thaw, billions of acres of productive agricultural land would become available.

Breathtaking stuff. Manages to ignore the evidence, downplay the danger, and blame the Russians, all in one sentence. It’s the sort of claim Monckton can make in a debate, leaving his opponents wondering whether they should unpack the falsehoods or ignore them. But such sophistry didn’t work for the prolix peer when he took part in a debate with Graham Parkes, professor of philosophy and head of the school of sociology and philosophy for University College Cork, at the beginning of October. Scott Mandia has Parkes’ full speech here.

The result? Parkes won the debate by 100 votes to 3. Sic transit gloria Moncktonii…

(*) “Valuable”, in so far as it makes SPPI’s output look even less credible (if that’s possible).

[Dire, that's what it is.]

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer