“Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by an anonymous climate denialist crank, so incredibly sloppy that he even embarrassed arch climate denier Anthony Watts, as shown in this link, and as I showed in one of last year’s “sea ice wrap-up” videos.
At least Chris Monckton has a medical condition that explains his break with reality. As for this “Goddard” character, well, I have to let you see this headline to believe it.
Which he chose to illustrate with the graph below –
What’s really refreshing and amusing is how “Goddard” was immediately taken to task by none other than Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center researcher whose iconic graph of accelerated sea ice loss I recently featured in a post. See here:
“Steve chose a graph that shows what he wants to portray while ignoring all the other institutions that show either a record low for 2011 or a “tie” with 2007. University of Bremen already announced it is a new record low. In my opinion, given the error margin of the measurement and algorithms, 2007 and 2011 basically tied in their extent this year. NSIDC will likely show 2011 as the second lowest, but again it’s within the error margin (which is about 50,000 sq-km).”
The arm waving we’ll be seeing this year, if NSIDC does not declare a new record, and U. Bremen does, will all be over a distinction without a difference, which is further evidence for my theory that climate denial is a form of autism -deliberately losing itself in a maze of details and completely unable to grasp a gestalt.
Stroeve tagged an addendum to her post, with an assessment of current ice conditions (as of Sept 12)
Remember last September though it looked like the minimum had been reached and then it went down further again. So best to be patient a few more days…
For now, a look at one of the most telling of ice graphs, the ice volume picture from the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington.
I’ll be featuring more examples of off-the-reality-rails rants from climate deniers in my sea ice update, which I’ll post as soon after the minimum as I can crank it out.
For more from Stroeve, see the video here:
There are the other 98%
😉
=> http://other98.com/
Otter17 – you’re giving up because you haven’t read what I wrote and still stuck at a theoretical level.
Succinctly : mitigation? Yes. Find me a mitigation effort that is positively effective and I’ll support it. Haven’t seen one yet, only grandstanding efforts with seriously negative consequences (ETS, palm oil, ethanol, you name it).
I’m not saying mitigation is inherently bad or impossible: I’m saying we need good examples of it before embracing THEM.
No, I have read what you have written. No, I am not stuck at a theoretical level. I am not giving up. On the contrary, I and others like me are actually going to support trying out mitigation efforts to see how they work, a near-term manageable and practical risk.
Yes, developments such as ethanol and palm oil have been tried and some may fail. So? Scrap them and support developing something like algae-based biofuel on marginal land. This is how technological problems are solved. As far as carbon taxes and ETS, these have hardly been tried thus far. Some forms of them may fail, for one reason or another, such as political interference, etc. So? Improve upon the ideas and try again. This is how economic and legislative problems are solved. Obviously, the best concepts are tried first, practical problem solving. This is a risk management problem where we have a near-term manageable risk within our control on one hand versus a future risk that is in the Earth’s control. Furthermore, there is a moral component when placing such a highly unmanageable risk on future generations.
I repeat, it is a manageable risk to embrace mitigation strategies. I will advocate that approach, and you can advocate waiting for a 99% certain mitigation solution. We can talk about what ended up working out in 2040.
You must be joking, Maurizio. There are many positive ways of mitigation. Even the army uses them. Solar, wind and energy efficiency are some of them.
If you can’t quantify it, you don’t understand it.
“Solar, wind and energy efficiency” will not have any discernible effect on global temperatures, and will not prevent CO2 levels from reaching any level that you care to name.
Because you say so?
That’s ridiculous. Any fuel not burnt causes less CO2 emissions.
Are we talking kindergarten here?
I don’t know of any mitigation initiative currently in progress that might noticeably change world temperatures. Do you?
Any additional CO2 emission is heating up the planet. You cannot deny the greenhouse effect of CO2. So any savings in CO2 emissions is avoiding more global warming. Maurizio, don’t get hair-splitting. That kind of propaganda is just not adding up.
Great article again: Doubt is Their Product. Denialism from Tobacco to Climate Change
You are talking just in theory. If you want things to add up, mitigation should happen in practice (ie efforts should correspond to results). That’s the job for the COP rounds and they’ve repeatedly and spectacularly failed. If you think that’s propaganda …
Do I get you right, Maurizio? You are denying that Solar and wind energy as well as energy efficiency would mitigate CO2 emissions and within global warming? Is that what you want to tell us?
As I said go for it, develop, test, implement, the works.
The question is not if each mitigation techniques works, but by how much and for what cost.
Wind energy is already cheaper than coal. Solar is cheaper than nuclear. That’s the cost.
If that is so, then why are the taxpayers massively subsidizing wind and solar, even on Maui, where residential electricity is a whopping $0.38/kW-hr?
The problem ain’t what you don’t know, Charles, it’s what you know that ain’t so.
Fact is that fossil fuels are getting a multiple in subsidies than renewables.
=> http://c1.redgreenandblue.org/files/2011/06/us_fuel_subsidies.jpg