This blog is just over two weeks old and we just hit our 1,000th comment.
Thanks everyone!
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- czechlist on Mission Accomplished
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- czechlist on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
Over 100 posts a week! That’s going some.
The snowiest on record since 1967. But not even that is true
Here is the real graph of the database from http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/moncov.nhland.txt
=> http://fisnua.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Northern-Hemisphere-Snow-Coverage-Average-October-March-1967-2010.jpg
Your graph, Steven Goddard, is just a fake.
I double checked and there is an error in my spreadsheet. The correct number is fourth snowiest. I’ll update the article.
No need to start making accusations.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/last-october-through-march-was-the-snowiest-on-record/
Is there not?
I think you better scrap your whole article.
Here is what Rutgers University (where you got your data from) publishes => http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2
I assume you understand what a “decade” is?
Steven Goddard. I know what a decade is. For example 1967 – 1970 is not a decade.
There is two possibilities:
1) You don’t know how to produce a decend graph (so you are far away from capable to write articles on a website which calls itself “Real Science”
2) You are willingly misinforming the people about climate change (and “Real Science” is supporting you to do so)
Here is the real graph about your decades
=> http://fisnua.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Northern-Hemisphere-Winter-Dec-Feb-Snowcover-by-Decade.jpg
Your graph matches mine. What is it that you are complaining about?
No it doesn’t.
But anyway, you have again being debunked in publishing inaccurate data to base unscientific denialism. No more to say. Case closed.
In other words, you pointed out a small error and can’t find anything else to complain about – so you are running away.
I’m not running away. I proved that all both graphs you were using to argue that the world would be cooling are false.
What more do you need?
All the evidence is telling us that the world is warming. We actually had the warmest decade on record (not only since 1967)!
AGW causes more extremes in wheather and climate. That is all scientifically proven.
And you are sitting here, presentiong us inaccurate graphs and inaccurate articles. And when debunked you’re telling us it was “a small error”. That “small error” you were using to base your unscientific denialism.
Steven Goddard, you have been debunked several times. You are misinforming people who seemingly don’t know much about climatology and science. You are counterproductive. Counterproductive to our societies and, at the end, counterproductive to yourself.
It’s time to learn.
It’s time to stop spreading the untruth!
If you believe that the decadal graph is incorrect, you are going to have to do better job of describing your complaint. I double checked it this morning vs. the Rutgers data and see nothing wrong. It also appears to be identical to the graph you supplied.
Every first grader would see a difference between the graps. Your first graph already was false.
Your whole article was based on two false graphs.
Do you think we are all nutters here?
It’s not the first time you have been debunked.
Your name is published on the Idiot Tracker yesterday again (http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/) for the umpteenth time.
I see – Looks like there are some problems with your graph – 1981-1990. But even so it shows that the most recent decade had the snowiest winters.
So what? Winter is winter. Climate scientists were even predicting that. More extremes in climate, more extremes in wheather. But the average temperature is rising.
See the spring northern hemisphere snow extend from Rutgers (where you got your data from) http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/2298/springsnowjpg.jpg
What has brought me up that you can’t even produce a single decend graph in your article, but you call it “Real Science”.
Your cherry picking “evidence” and what you make out of it is a real joke (but not a funny one).
It seems that you are willingly misinforming the people. The question is Why?
In other words, my claim that the most recent decade was the snowiest is correct.
1967-1970 45513649.5 km²
1971-1980 45447410.97 km²
1981-1990 40442965.4 km²
1991-2000 44650157.27 km²
2000-2010 45586094.4 km²
Some record in four decades.
Your graphs were false and an exaggeration as your whole article.
Only little children don’t admit when they’re doing wrong.
Mature people apologise.
Assuming that you actually meant 2001-2010, your numbers confirm that the last decade had the snowiest winters – just as I said. What is it that you are disagreeing about?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/1000-comments/#comment-1248