Walt Meier Still Having Difficulty With Basic Mathematics

“There is no doubt that climate change is real,” says Walt Meier of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

“The two poles are just responding in their own unique way to the same global phenomenon.”

He points out that Earth, taken as a whole, is losing sea ice. According to satellite measurements from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles of sea ice a year since the late 70s.  Meanwhile, the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles per year—not enough to balance loses at the other end of the planet.

The Yin-Yang of Polar Sea Ice – NASA Science

Earth to Walt. Earth to Walt. Is anybody in there? Global sea ice area is 4th highest on record for the date, and has been averaging above normal for the past two years.

iphone.anomaly.global (4)

iphone.anomaly.global.png (512×412)

Addition is hard for government climate scientists.


About stevengoddard

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

35 Responses to Walt Meier Still Having Difficulty With Basic Mathematics

  1. Sparks says:

    Global sea Ice as a whole can go and melt away! like it was supposed to do this year, lets see more social care! and less BS!

  2. Cornelius says:

    Steve is still employing those “old” mathematical techniques. Once he’s on board with the likes of zero = 1 million km^2, then Walt will make perfect sense.

  3. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    He’s a climate scientist fact are not important on the message counts!

  4. There’s better proof that climate change is real in the NOAA graph of annual temperature anomalies, which shows that global warming started in 1980 and ended in 1998, which means that “demon carbon” wasn’t the cause. As my colleague Dr. Peter Ward and I argue in our website ozonedepletiontheory.info, the real culprit is the ozone hole, which was caused by chlorine from chlorofluorocarbons catalytically destroying ozone and allowing a massive increase in actinic flux of high-energy UV-B radiation that heated up the oceans until CFC production was shut down by the Montreal Protocol. The hole is still open because it will take many decades for the chlorine to precipitate out of the stratosphere, so the climate probably won’t return to normal until about mid-century.

    • Gail Combs says:

      What about the chlorine from volcanoes? HCl is one of the gases release by volcanoes.

      Most Common Gases

      Water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) are the most common volcanic gases.

      Other Gases

      In lesser amounts, volcanoes release carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbonyl sulfide (COS), carbon disulfide (CS2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), hydrogen flouride (HF), boron, hydrogen bromine (HBr), mercury (Hg) vapor, organic compounds, even gold. From Cadle (1980).

      I realize the volcano has to be explosive to get the gas in to the stratosphere where it will effect ozone fromation/destruction. But then how the heck did CFCs get to the stratosphere? CFC molecules are several times heavier than the various molecules that compose air. (Freon 120.93 g/mol)

      There is some indication that extended solar minimums are associated with increased sesmic activity.


      • Yes, in fact it was Peter Ward’s understanding of the effect of volcanic chlorine releases on ozone that led him to propose the ozone depletion theory. He’s a volcanologist now retired from the US Geological Survey. There’s a good discussion of the differing effects of effusive basaltic and explosive andesitic volcanoes on global warming and cooling, respectively, on the website (ozonedepletiontheory.info). Volcanic bromine is also an ozone destroyer. CFCs themselves didn’t get into the stratosphere, but monatomic chlorine from the photodissociation of CFCs did and began destroying ozone when stratospheric temperature dropped enough to allow formation of polar stratigraphic clouds in which the catalytic reaction takes place. Thanks for the reference on the relation between solar minima and seismic activity! I strongly suspect that both these phenomena are tied into the Milankovitch rhythms.

      • cdquarles says:

        Turbulent mixing and diffusion is how it happens. Gases are miscible. Gravitational fractionation does not happen in our atmosphere until you get to its very top, where the lightest ones can reach escape velocity much more often than the heavier ones.

  5. Tx, Gail! All good info, which I look forward to perusing. Yes, we’re aware of the influence of solar output variability on actinic flux. Good point.

  6. philjourdan says:

    Math is a hard science. LIberals are useless in hard sciences.

    • Kind of a parochial outlook, isn’t it? When you use the epithet “liberal”, do you ever stop and think just what you mean by it? What is a “liberal”, anyway? Do you have any idea? Does it actually help to classify people with such meaningless labels? Am I a “liberal”? I stand for a fair deal for everyone. I say “tax the rich!” I’m also adamantly anti-illegal-immigration, and I think undocumented aliens have no rights, period. I was a federal policeman, but I don’t and won’t ever own a gun because I know damn well that a gun is worse than useless for self-defense unless it’s loaded, in your hand, and shot first. I think Obama is a sap and that Eisenhower was the best president we’ve ever had. I’m a tree-hugger and a rabid environmentalist who doesn’t believe in greenhouse warming. I hate rock and roll and I love Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Doc Watson, and Vassar Clements. I play both classical violin and country fiddle. I was a professional ski patrolman at Killington and an extreme skier and rockclimber. I hate poetry. So, does all that make me a “liberal”? And finally, what the hell does being a “liberal” have to do with hard science? It didn’t seem to hold back Albert Einstein or Richard Feynman. Get a grip on reality, son.

      • The climate scam is a leftist/Democratic Party scam. Anyone who is not in a coma is aware of that.

        Do you still think I am faking NASA graphs?

      • Gail Combs says:

        Unfortunately in the USA CAGW has started to divide down party lines. However there are certainly what Americans call ‘liberals’ who are very much against CAGW. Richard S. Courtney over at WUWT is very much a socialist but I respect him very much.

        For that matter Rosa Koire who calls herself a “Flaming Liberal” is also very much against CAGW and Agenda 21.

        Democrats Against Agenda 21

        The “Lets You and He Fight” while I steal the prize, is a classic move that is used by the power hunger. Obama’s stirring up racial tensions again is an example of this classic distraction. So is the “Democrat” vs ‘Republican” Rah Rah Rah team stuff we see every two years.

        Personally I think we would be better off if we were represented by a blind drawing of a random person within each district.

      • philjourdan says:

        YOu are wasting your breath. I allow them to define themselves. And it is not “parochial”, it is merely a fact. YOu are free to challenge it, and indeed you are free to contest what a “liberal” is. I really do not care. I prefer to stick with facts. Not emoting idiots that find math hard.

        • Actual facts, or facts as you see them? There’s usually a difference. The IPCC sees “facts” one way, you and I see them differently, but even so, you and I still might not agree. The only safe and effective way to get at the actual truth of an apparent “fact” is to keep an open mind, pay attention, and be ready to change your mind on the basis of new evidence. The difference between science and religion is that in science you can’t believe in anything. Once you do, it turns into religion.

        • philjourdan says:

          Non Sequitur. I do not care what the IPCC does, nor did I bring them up. If you are having problems with the English language, I can recommend some very good ESL classes. Otherwise take my statement at face value. I do not “write” between the lines.

        • As a professional copy editor, I have many problems with the English language, all of them generated by my clients. As for you, I read you loud and clear. You are an arrogant, opinionated bigot, and I see no value in communicating with you further.

        • philjourdan says:

          Ah, the ad hominems fly when you are called out for your pathetic straw man. Get over it. The sun does not rise and set with your magnificence. Given you have NOT engaged me as yet, instead attempting some feeble straw man, your latest “threat” is as impotent as your original post.

          If you want to discuss what I say, then discuss what I say – not what you want me to say. That, for the high and arrogant editor, is called building a straw man. And I do not play that game.

        • Tx, Gail! I did see those.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I had one other comment with many links that I found and then lost again.

          Maybe it was this one.
          (Otherwise I give up)

          My biggest problem with the IPCC is they are focused ONLY on CO2 so there is no way they will ever make much headway on figuring out the earth’s climate drivers.
          The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change defines climate change:

          “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

          The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, and considers only atmospheric changes.

          The IPCC mandate is similar:

          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.

          So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ So ‘Climate Change’ (their definition) has always been about a ‘hobgoblin’ to scare people with. This is what was wanted by the Globalists like the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO. Recently the UN even came out and said Communism was the best form of government for fighting climate change.

          United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.

          For those opposed to totalitarian government by an elite and the Democide: Death by Government that often results, those are fighting words. It is also tough to say politics are not part of CAGW when the UN comes out with remarks like that..

          The IPCC also says:

          …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible
          IPCC 2001 section page 774

          So they even admitted their Climate Models, the models Christiana Figueres is using to call for worldwide Communism, are nothing but trash.

          Unfortunately with CAGW the blasted politicians and more important, the World Bankare using it as a wealth extraction tool.

          The World Bank’s employee, Robert Watson was head of the IPCC. The Copenhagen talks broke down thanks to the “Danish text leak: a secret draft agreement .. hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank.”

          The goal of Carbon Trading was to set up a worldwide trade in Carbon Credits (CCs), designed around a standard market mechanism, so that greenhouse gas producers could be penalised while greenhouse gas consumers could be rewarded. The easiest way to ‘consume’ CO2 is with trees so now “The World Bank is deporting farmers from their farmland.”

          World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
          The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020.

          As I said I am an information Junkie.

        • Interesting. Tx! I recommend that you check out our website: ozonedepletiontheory.info. It’s an info junkie’s dream!

        • Says the guy who showed up here guns a blazing accusing me of doctoring images.

  7. Chargoggaggogmanchaugaggogchaubunagumgamaug.

    • Latitude says:

      the preceding public service announcement was brought to you by…

      Smith-Kline……….makers of Thorazine

    • Gail Combs says:

      A lake near where my husband grew up.

      • Correct. It’s in northeast Connecticut, and in MicMac it means “I fish on my side, you fish on your side, nobody fish in the middle.” Best advice I ever heard. The seventh letter from the end should be an “n”, and not an “m”, BTW. My bad.

      • Oh, yeah, and it’s pronounced “Ch’ gogga GOG mun, ch’ GAH gog, ch’ bunna GUNG ga-maug.” When I was in my prime about sixty years ago, I could say the WHOLE thing in ONE belch. Talk about amaze your friends and frighten your enemies.

        • mjc says:

          To really do that you need to learn to speak in Welsh…

        • No problem! Llanffairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobyllllantisiliogogogoch. That is pronounced (wrap your tongue around this!) LHYAN-fair pwhlh GWIN-gillh gog-ger-ih SCHWIRN drob-illh HLLAN-tis SIL-ly-og O-go GOCHH, and it means (according to my Welsh grandmother): “The church of St. Mary in the hollow of a white hazel, near to a rapid whirlpool, near to a red cave.” My mother, BTW, was born in Pwllheli, Wales. I won’t even try to render that phonetically. The Pwll part sounds like you’re spitting out something nasty. The rest, HELL-y, isn’t so bad. It means “Brine pool.” Glad you asked?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s