Mark Serreze – Climate Buffoon Of The Week

Mark told us recently that the August storm didn’t have much effect on ice extent.

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Mark Serreze – Climate Buffoon Of The Week

  1. gator69 says:

    After the week we have had, you know Mark had to really knuckle drag and get his stupid on to win this dishonor.

  2. pjie2 says:

    Um, Steve, try fitting a straight line to the two weeks preceding the storm, and overlay it on the graph. Yes, the storm produced an immediate dip (at least in part due to clouds obscuring the sensor), but within a week the graph had pretty much returned to its previous trend. The same applies to the IJIS, NSIDC and NORSEX extent graphs, and to the NORSEX and Cryosphere Today area graphs.

    There’s some residual loss that may be attributable to the storm, maybe 0.1 million square kilometres. That’s of course quite large in terms of Manhattans, but pretty much irrelevant in context given that the record’s going to be broken by around three quarters of a million.

  3. gator69 says:

    “David Appell says:
    August 30, 2012 at 3:04 pm
    Variation of what?”

    Spoken like a true denier. 😉

  4. Jay Zwally says:

    I suppose it makes you and your followers feel better to call scientists like Mark Serreze a buffoon? Seems like the more the sea ice declines the stronger the invective gets. What is it that makes you political conservatives so angry? Whether most of the Arctic sea ice is gone at the end of the summer in 2012, 13, ….or 2020 doesn’t really matter, it is declining faster than most scientists thought just a few years ago from models of the impact of climate warming. The sea ice is definitely responding to climate warming from increasing GHG’s, and the open water absorbs more heat which increases the climate warming in the Arctic. Grasping at straws and nit-picking about the facts or what “ice free” means isn’t going to change that. But I doubt you will believe, even after the last piece of ice is gone.
    Jay Zwally

    • Jay,

      In 2007 you said that the Arctic might be ice free by 2012. Has that happened?

      • Whatever says:

        ACTUALLY what Zwally said in his 2007 statement after an unusually sharp drop in ice extent (and this point has been repeated on your blog many times) is “AT THIS RATE, the ice could be gone by 2012. . .” Of course, the rate changed as expected (winter came, variation in the weather, etc.)

        Steven, why do you persist in twisting such an obvious truth?

      • When you put things in context they sound just as bad… It was a stupid thing to say. Should never have been said.

    • Glacierman says:

      If you really think all the ice will melt, then you are in the same category.

      Oh, and I know what “ice free” means.

    • gator69 says:

      How does being a scientist prevent one from being a buffoon?

      • Glacierman says:

        Only if they are “a professional climate scientist”. Cause they are trying to save the world, so they get extra credit for their efforts.

    • Sundance says:

      Jay, I enjoyed reading the Antarctic ice mass balance reanalysis paper you wrote with Giovinetto. Any updates from 2009 in the pipeline?

  5. Jay Zwally says:

    Is likely that the warming from the declining sea ice is increasing the probability of more storms like the one in early Aug. see:
    05 Mar 2012: Analysis
    Linking Weird Weather to
    Rapid Warming of the Arctic
    The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and the rapid warming of the Far North are altering the jet stream over North America, Europe, and Russia. Scientists are now just beginning to understand how these profound shifts may be increasing the likelihood of more persistent and extreme weather.
    by jennifer francis
    Jay Zwally

  6. NoMoreGore says:

    Someone needs to Nuke the arctic now and make it ice free so we can watch it all refreeze in the next few months…. and we can watch as not one single other consequence occurs.

    • Blade says:

      That would be a perfect demonstration, if only we had enough nukes. Even at the summer minimum we couldn’t melt the Arctic down to liquid.

      What is astounding is that these warmie psychopaths actually think a few extra molecules of CO2 and maybe a degree can somehow achieve it.

      This AGW psychosis does serve one good purpose and that is as a kind of Rorschach test. If someone looks at an ink blot and always sees something creepy or fatalistic you might want to keep an eye on them. Normal people would do well to identify these kooks in their day-to-day lives, when you interview someone to hire as an employee, a babysitter, to shovel your driveway, to fix your car, be your doctor or pediatrician, etc.

      You can’t put a price tag on rationality and common sense and these kooks fail at both.

      • Don Sutherland says:

        AGW is based on empirical evidence, principles of physics, etc. It is not a delusion.

      • Whatever says:

        The relatively low volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is 2nd only to water vapor as the strongest greenhouse gas. It currently accounts for roughly 15% of the total greenhouse effect, so raising its percentage is bound to have an increased effect. Simple physics.

      • Glacierman says:

        Don Sutherland says:
        August 31, 2012 at 1:48 am

        “AGW is based on empirical evidence, principles of physics, etc. It is not a delusion.”

        No, it is based on manipulated data and misapplied principals of physics, by delusional people.

      • gator69 says:

        “AGW is based on empirical evidence…”

        NOTHING could be further from the truth. Don, you have permanently damaged your credibility with me.

        And you wonder why we call some scientists buffoons.

  7. gofer says:

    Remember the Australia permanent drought? All the hand-wringing and building of desalination plants because it was never going to change? At one time, there was hand-wringing going on because the ice was accumulating too fast and it wasn’t melting enough. Now it’s the opposite. Whatever direction it goes, so does climate science.

  8. Climate Nemesis says:

    Please note that this post by Steven Goddard is based on data from passive microwave sensors.

    On September 2nd 2012 Steven Goddard made the following statement concerning exactly such data:

    “I learned. – Passive microwave sensors are crap.”

    Consequently this post by Steven Goddard is based on data he himself has deemed to be “crap”.
    In fact there are numerous posts here on Real Science where Steven Goddard is using such “crap” data to draw all kinds of conclusions.

    When alerted to this, Steven Goddard responded with the following statement:

    “Go be a moron somewhere else.”

    The above statements can be found in the thread below the post “Alarmists Are Incapable Of Learning From Their Own Mistakes”.
    Permission is granted to copy this comment – thank you for your kind attention.

    • Blade says:

      So you are calling Steve a hypocrite because he criticizes the shortcomings of the passive microwave method yet he shows a plot from one? That makes no sense at all and identifies you as completely without logic.

      Even old or failing equipment is still capable of displaying the existence of an anomaly. It clearly shows an event during the storm’s timeframe. For you to be making any sense *you* would have to now be agreeing with his original criticism, that “Passive microwave sensors are crap” and are prepared to say that the event seen on the plot is not really there! Doh. Put another way, remember Hubble without the mirror corrections? Even with blurry vision if it were aiming at the same place over a period of time it would still be able to record the existence of an anomaly! You apparently do not realize the concept that equipment with consistent error can still be useful.

      Anyway, anyone can see your agenda is just searching for references to data derived from passive radar methods and then cut and paste your feeble propaganda attempt.

      So Climate Nemesis, why don’t you put your big-boy pants on and explain what’s in it for you? What would cause you to troll around bottom-posting stale threads in this manner? I find it hard to believe that Mark Serreze has groupies who are this twisted and desperate. Wouldn’t your time be more satisfyingly spent twittering about President DingleBarry or Linsey Lohan?

      “Go be a moron somewhere else.”

      Clearly he got that reference right if you do not even know what hypocrisy is!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s