Further to the cessation of the brief hiatus in my continuing discussions with “Steve Goddard” about “global warming”, the debate has turned to predictions concerning Arctic sea ice metrics during the 2014 melting season.
Firstly here’s a few charts of assorted Arctic sea ice metrics, hot off the virtual presses:
Here’s a table of the minimum value of some of those metrics for a selection of years:
|NSIDC daily 15% extent||5.74877||5.077090||4.98339|
Now here’s one of Steve/Tony’s predictions, in this case from August 1st 2014:
The minimum this summer will likely be close to the 2006 minimum, which was the highest minimum of the past decade.
And finally here’s the “discussion” (such as it is) over at the “Real Science” blog:
That’s not really how things turned out, is it?
That is exactly how it turned out.
Do you believe it was ice-free as Nobel Prize winner Al Gore predicted?
Perhaps this chart is clearer?
How do you define “exactly”, “likely” and “close”?
Regarding my views on Al Gore’s so called predictions, see:
In brief “Al Gore never ‘predicted’ that the Arctic would be ice-free by now!”
Well, he didn’t say ’22 years from now’, did he? No, he emphasized the most alarmist position he could find.
You can weasel out of this by stating that Gore did not make the prediction ,but he sure as Hell quoted and emphasized it, over any and all other predictions. And in front of the Nobel committee and entire world at that!
So have you confronted Gore over the failed prediction he parroted in Oslo? When you do, you will have a modicum of credibility. Get busy.
At the risk of repeating myself, “for the benefit of those who seem unable to understand either English or Mathematics a ‘projection’ is not the same thing as a ‘prediction’”
Getting back to Tony’s predictions, and using the NSIDC daily extent numbers for the moment, would you say that 4.98339 is “exactly” 5.74877? How about “close”?
Actually, no, your chart is less clear. Steve’s has all the years and it is clear his prediction is correct. Yours does not. Nor does yours have a legible legend. Another snow white lie.
Have you by any chance tried clicking on my chart? Does that help at all?
At the risk of repeating myself, would you say that 4.98339 is “exactly” 5.74877? How about “close”?
What bearing does 2013’s minimum have on goddard’s prediction for 2014? Are you a half-wit in addition to being a mentally ill stalker & transvestite?
What bearing does 2014’s maximum have on 2014’s minimum?
Are you blind?
You seem to think that some random number you came up with has some bearing on the subject at hand. Hint: it’s why we think you’re mentally ill.
Of course they’re not random numbers. To save you the bother of doing your own research please feel free to take a look at:
Stark, it’s not about random numbers, it’s about random harassment. This clown takes no issue with ridiculous ‘projections’ delivered by alarmist zealots on a world stage, instead he haunts this site moaning about near misses.
But you are right about the mentally ill bit.
The conversation about the non-random Arctic numbers has at last taken a statistical turn over at:
I note that you are still dodging the question there too.
We’ll keep you posted!
1 thought on “Implausible Deniability of 2014 Arctic Sea Ice Predictions”
Thanks to Peter Ellis (and eventually Stark Dickflüssig) for pointing out that I originally uploaded the 2013 version of the NSIDC extent chart. An easy mistake to make?