Arctic Has Gained Hundreds Of Miles Of Ice The Last Three Years

i did, you ignored it

 

ROFL! That is where any honest person quits reading your post.

No one has denied science. But, you like to tell a lie and put a false label for the sake of your ideology.

 

560 words 15 written by you in an incomplete sentence.

 

goddard admitted he was wrong and of course you're ignoring reality


Steven Goddard writes: “Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid…. 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.”

http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/p/who-is-steven-goddard.html

 

Didn't even bother to write your own work this time, not a single word actually written by you.

 

all you're doing is demonstrating your dishonesty

 

So the best a hit piece website could come up with was one retraction 7 years ago? Thats the best you can (*)(*)(*)(*)ing do? Pathetic!

 

Whats dishonest? You didn't write a single word of that post. You demand that others debate copy pastes. That is not how debate works. Evidence and sources are used to support your own argument in your own words you don't simply copy and paste someone else's argument.

 

it's just one example, here's another example of goddard's incompetency:

"Goddard claims that the very high surface temperatures on Venus are largely attributable to its "extremely high atmospheric pressure" and that the composition of the Venusian atmosphere, which is 96% carbon dioxide, has little influence over surface temperatures on the planet. Though he does not cite him specifically, Goddard's claim echoes the ideas outlined in a 2003 paper authored by Hans Jelbring, which also posits that surface temperatures on a planet are directly influenced by the size of the mass of the atmosphere.

Goddard's theory on the reason for high Venusian surface temperatures challenges accepted planetary science theories which have established that surface temperatures on celestial bodies with atmospheres are largely a function of the rate at which incoming light radiation is received by a celestial body and the rate at which infrared emissions from the planet's body are blocked by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard#cite_note-4

you typed it out, i certainly didn't

 

Another copy paste from you but I'm curious why you think that there can be no competing theories or that there could be colienarity between theories?

It seems to me that you approach science like a religious fanatic where there is only dogma.

 

So when the earth is warmer...Ice increases and when it gets colder it decreases. Fascinating.

 

Dujac does not believe his own lying eyes. So tell us, are those satellite images fakes?

 

of course you won't admit goddard is a hack, despite all the times he's been debunked

here's another example of his dishonesty:

"Goddard charged that until 2000, NASA reported that in the United States, 1934 was hotter than 1998 and that the country has been cooling since then.

"Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered U.S. climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer," Goddard wrote.

We rate the claim Pants on Fire.


Climate science experts say not so fast

Doocy exaggerated the findings in this blog post when he applied it to global warming. The post itself only talks about U.S. land temperatures and what happens in the United States is separate from global shifts.

As far as what the blog actually claimed, while it accurately copied the changes in the government charts, experts in U.S. temperature measurement say it ignores why the charts shifted. There were major changes in how the country gathered temperature information over the decades.

Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with Berkeley Earth, a research group that has expressed doubts about some of the reports on climate change coming from Washington and international bodies. Hausfather took Goddard to task when Goddard made a similar claim about numbers fudging earlier this month. The missing piece in Goddard’s analysis, Hausfather said, was he ignored that the network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the one that existed 80 years ago.

"He is simply averaging absolute temperatures," Hausfather wrote. "Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time."

Weather stations that once were in a valley might now be on a hill top and vice versa. But the shift could be greater than simple elevation. Stations were moved from one part of a state to another. The number of stations within a given area shifted. All these differences, Hausfather and other experts said, will alter the typical temperatures gathered by government meteorologists.

Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said the raw data used in the blog post suffered from an equally troubling flaw. The temperatures were not measured at the same time of day.

"Over time, the U.S. network went from recording max/min temperatures at different points of the day, to doing it at midnight," Schmidt said.

In fact, volunteers staffed many of the stations. Before 1940, most followed Weather Service guidelines and recorded the temperature at sundown. Through the second half of the century, there was a gradual shift to recording morning temperatures. This change produced the appearance of a cooling trend when none existed.

Comparing apples to apples

Better instruments and more consistent methods have allowed scientists to collect more reliable data. But for climate studies, long-term trends are key and the challenge has been how to make the best use of the older readings.

In the mid 1980s, the government settled on a list of about 1,200 stations across the country to track temperature trends. Around 1990, climatologists began delivering computer programs to factor in the artificial changes that systematically pushed the readings one way or the other. Over time, they accounted for the impacts of equipment, location, the time of day of measurements and urbanization (more asphalt leads to higher surface temperatures).

There is no question that running the raw data through these programs changes the graphs of average temperatures. However, multiple researchers from a variety of institutions have fed into this process and come up with their own computer models. Results from different teams largely match up.

John Nielsen-Gammon is a researcher at Texas A&M University and is the Texas state climatologist. Nielsen-Gammon finds nothing nefarious in the government analysis of temperature trends.

"It is reasonable to expect the adjusted data record to change over time as the technology for identifying and removing artificial changes improves," Nielsen-Gammon said. "If there are any biases, they are caused by the quality of the underlying data, not by any biases intentionally introduced into the adjustment process."

All of the experts we reached or whose work we read rejected Goddard’s conclusions.

Mark C. Serreze, professor of geography at the University of Colorado-Boulder, said no fabrication has taken place.

"Goddard's results stem from an erroneous analysis of the data," Serreze said.

Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.

"I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better," Watts wrote."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/

 

Vostok ice core data lacks the resolution to say anything about decadial variances.

However, the GISP2 ice cores show quite clearly that we are still in a cooling trend despite our recent warming.



Notice the 1000 year cycle?

 

that was easily debunked here:

https://clearscience.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/questions-for-c3-headlines/

 

Why dont you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing debunk it?

Just reading the banal blog you posted its not about the GISP2 core but an antarctic core. Your googlefu is failing you.

 

i don't feel any need to reinvent the wheel

all i choose to do is expose how dishonest, biased and wrong your posts are

here's another debunking of c3's nonsense:

"Coming from an article on the website C3Headlines, this image claims that carbon dioxide concentrations have ‘Linear, Not Exponential Growth’. thereby ‘expos[ing] the lunacy of typical left/liberal/progressive/Democrat anti-science’, The author has reached this conclusion by graphing January CO2 levels* and fitting a linear trendline to them.
Already this is a warning sign – the comparisons the author makes are entirely qualitative, apparently based up on eyeballing the graph. However, trend lines are created by a statistical process called a linear regression, which comes with a caveat: it will fit a trend line to ANY data given to it, linear or nonlinear. Fortunately, there are also ways of evaluating how good a trend line is."

https://topologicoceans.wordpress.com/tag/geochemistry-of-carbon/

 

So the government scientists who did the adjustment say that there is nothing wrong with their adjustment?

NEWS AT 11!

 

you don't seem to be able to get anything right

https://topologicoceans.wordpress.com/about/

 

In other words you cant. You haven't even addressed the GISP2 record. You are off on a tangent about C3Headlines.

NEW FLASH

Every single (*)(*)(*)(*)ing graph of the GISP2 core is the same. Even the ones on your precious liar John Cooks blog

 

"This is my current internet outpost, where I share my thoughts on science and society."

For all we know that is your own (*)(*)(*)(*)ing blog.

 

what i've been doing is exposing a consistent pattern

of dishonest and biased sources that you keep citing

 

No comment Dujac? Is this evidence unacceptable for some reason?

 

it was debunked long ago

 

Ah someone is pissed that I proved his pope faked his research. Do you want a pillow to cry on? God forbid you had to post your own analysis and couldn't copy paste all day. You wouldn't have 20k posts of one sentence comment followed by pages of copy paste.