Arctic Ice Growth Since 1971

Reader Brian D sent over this 1971 National Geographic map, which shows that there is a lot more Arctic sea ice now than there was 42 years ago.

ScreenHunter_11 Jul. 30 19.16

Arctic Ocean Map 1971 by National Geographic from Maps.com.

I remember seeing that map at the time.  The next map overlays current ice extent on the 1971 map, with green representing ice present in 2013 that was not present in 1971, and red representing the opposite.

ScreenHunter_12 Jul. 30 19.29

NSIDC likes to pretend that ice has been declining steadily, by starting their graphs near the century maximum in 1978.

ScreenHunter_168 Jun. 15 11.08

N_05_plot.png (420×240)

But sadly for them, the 1990 IPCC report captured the growth in ice prior to 1979.

ScreenHunter_170 Jun. 15 11.10

www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

NCAR mentioned the ice growth at the time

by Walter Orr Roberts  Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

In February of 1972 earth-orbiting artificial satellites revealed the existence of a greatly increased area of the snow and ice cover of the north polar cap as compared to all previous years of space age observations.

www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull165/16505796265.pdf

As did the CIA

PaintImage10991 (1)

CIA Report 1974

There was so little ice in 1969, that experts thought it would be ice-free “within a decade or two

 Below350.org

 Below350.org Below350.org

http://news.google.com/newspapers

Is Mark Serreze hiding the incline of Arctic ice since 1969?

#ArcticIceScam

About these ads

About stevengoddard

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

128 Responses to Arctic Ice Growth Since 1971

  1. miked1947 says:

    There is NO way NSIDC would Cherry Pick the date they would use to start their so called report for ice coverage in the Arctic. :) Some might think a thing was unethical, but then some would applaud the decision as proper to support an unsupportable agenda.

  2. Brian D says:

    Yeah, isn’t that something. They also have a map published Feb 1983 that seems to have slightly greater extent. But it is termed AVERAGE extent, meaning it has been greater and lesser than the established line on the map.
    http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?cid=92&pid=15610

    • Bill says:

      The CIA spoke of several “adverse climactic events” and listed ice getting more abundant and it getting colder. Interesting. Maybe the CIA just reads the newspaper to see what they should be alarmed about?

  3. F. Guimaraes says:

    You have the gift to create very precise and objective reports that are undeniably true Steve, in which the power of the facts themselves are worth a 100 pages of debate. You’ve just produced another one, congratulations and thanks! :-)
    Now the question: why, oh why, the Arctic icecap was so (relatively) small in 1971? The average temps were lower back then, strong winds maybe? A possible important part of the answer is: 1971 was the peak of cycle C20 with some strong monthly averages happening similar to C23,
    http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/dhm4444/media/ssncon_zps8d97b454.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

    • F. Guimaraes says:

      Just another thought, we are at the maximum of cycle C24 now and the world temperatures are (probably) higher now than in 1971, if the Arctic icecap responds quickly to solar radiations, as it is suggested by the data between maximum and minimum of cycle C20 presented in this thread, the projections for the next 5-6 years of the Arctic ice extent would be very good.

    • darrylb says:

      Change in phase in PDO and AMO. PDO is changing again and AMO should in near future. It may mean a growth in Arctic sea ice again

  4. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on CACA and commented:
    NAT GEO news 2008:
    Arctic Ice in “Death Spiral,” Is Near Record Low
    “With additional heating due to global warming, the extent of sea ice cover has gotten smaller and smaller over the summers since the 1980s”
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080917-sea-ice.html

    • Look forward to the 2013 Arctic Ice Death Spiral update: “We’ve got no idea what we’re talking about. However human’s are still to blame, the problem of global warming has not gone away. ”
    #ArcticIceScam

    • F. Guimaraes says:

      ” … We’ve got no idea what we’re talking about… ”
      Their problem is they’ll never admit it.

  5. John B., M.D. says:

    Per Nat Geo map from 1971 above, the Northwest Passage was navigated in 1903-1906, 1940-1942, and in 1944 (see tiny comments when zoom in on map, down and left of center halfway to the corner).

    On the other hand, in small print you can also see that the ice is drawn as the “limit of multi-year ice,” so not directly comparable to data from today’s date – I think we have to see what the September (or August if temps do plunge below freezing) minimum extent shows.

  6. eyesonly says:

    Steve, your historical references are likely being used and referenced by quite a few in the battle for the truth. I’m not a frequent commenter but I do folloow you closely.

    Keep up the good work.

  7. Winston says:

    Good work, however, some of us find the glacier disappearance (from 1900′s to present) of far more immediate concern and significance than fluctuating ice mass levels in the arctic and antarctic. Those glaciers ARE disappearing in the US and Canadian NW., (some quite gone) Himalayas,and elsewhere; our water supply should be protected from criminal predatory ‘business’ at all costs, vicous creatures like T.B. Pickens (owns Water supply in virtually entire Texas panhandle, while western Oglala water reserve lowest level in history and depleting rapidly). Hydraulic fracking just makes these monsters investment of potable water that much more expensive, as it permanently poisons aquifers. CEO of Nestle stated this year that “people have no Right to water” (especially as this monster intends to sell it like the new heroin, not “White Gold” as they term it). Best to stop them now.

    • slimething says:

      90% of glacier melt occurred before 1960.
      There is no evidence fracking poisons aquifiers. You must think ‘Gas Land’ is a documentary.

    • Traitor In Chief says:

      You should try living in the NW. You can collect more rainwater in your backyard than you will need all year long. You don’t even need a well. Glaciers continuing to ablate indicates they are out of equilibrium with the current climate. But it does not require that we are warmer than we were in 1934 (or even 1901). Only that we remain out of equilibrium. Since records indicate increasing NH snow cover in recent decades, we may be warmer than the past, but we’re not facing a declining water supply (apart from specific regions). Live where water is abundant, and fear not.

    • darrylb says:

      It is generally agreed upon that the last major ice age ended about 10 to 12 thousand years ago. That is a relatively short time compared to millions of years of change.
      The accepted theory is that much of the North American Continent was covered by a Huge Glacier which when it melted formed Lake Agassi which was much larger in area than the great lakes combined. Although that glacier did not recede as much as it melted in place, one could do back of envelope calculations and come up with a loose statement that since then the glaciers have receded by over a foot per day.
      The only thing that seems to be constant is change.

    • darrylb says:

      Yes, I agree that water shortage could be a major concern, much more than any hyped ACC. The Ogallala aquifer, named after the western Nebraska town, but which lies under many states has been steadily decreasing and I do believe is of significant concern. I read one study that concluded that 42% of sea rise is due to land run off.
      However, I have not read of any similar studies.
      I

    • gator69 says:

      I despise ignorance! The EPA testified before congress and admitted there has not been one single incident of hydraulic fracking effecting drinking water.

      Not one instance.

      For definitive answers, go here and get an education.

      http://fracknation.com/

      Stupid mother f*ckers are poisoning the well of progress.

    • John B., M.D. says:

      Winston – Name-calling and ad hominem attacks is the lowest form of debate.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (see Graham’s pyramid)

      Have you looked at the actual historical data about glacier melt or droughts/floods?

    • An Inquirer says:

      A melting glacier produces water which can be used. An advancing glacier reduces the amount of water that humans can use.

  8. Eric Simpson says:

    Another thing that cannot be censored by the Chicken Little Brigade is the 1977 “In Search Of” TV show on “The Coming Ice Age” that spoke of a huge ice buildup in the Arctic area. As I said in a previous thread, the 22 minute show starts with the narrator Leonard Nimoy (Spock) saying: “Climate experts believe another ice age is on the way. According to recent evidence, it could come sooner than anyone had expected. At weather stations in the far north, temperatures have been dropping. Sea coasts long free of summer ice are now blocked .. year round.” See the show here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M&info=InSearchOfIceAge
    So, we were at a highpoint of ice buildup in ~ 1978, and any decline since then could be expected and is natural. Just like around the middle of the 19th century the Little Ice Age ended, and any increase in temperature since then has been part of a rebound / recovery from the LIA, and is natural. We don’t have problem. The climate is fine. It’s not broken. So quit trying to fix it!
    An another thing, this talk an ice buildup in the Arctic is also consistent with the hysteria about global cooling. Again, as I said in that previous thread: the solution to the cooling: curtail industrial civilization. Now, with global warming, the solution: curtail industrial civilization. And before there was either a cooling or warming scare, the environmentalists and leftists had a deep abiding desire to: curtail industrial civilization. This is Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren in 1973, and the basis of Holdren’s desire for this had nothing to do with cooling or warming: “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States… [we] must design a stable, low-consumption economy.”

  9. Lou says:

    Lest we forget. What happens to the worlds mean ocean level if the ice in the Arctic decreases by 49% and the ice in the Antarctic increases by 5%?

    The ocean level will DROP. This DROPPING is exactly what seems to be happening. Gentlemen we are being HAD.

    IMO in five years or less it will be clear to even the most warming brainwashed that the earth has entered a strong cooling period and the 200 million tons (as of 2012 with a rate of dumping of about 30 million tons/year) of aluminum microfibers dumped into our atmosphere, lungs and food productive soil has accelerated this cooling and entered us into a micro ice age. The dismantling of our energy infrastructure and food supplies coupled with the global depression is going to KILL a lot of people as they literally freeze to death; just as engineered. Historically warm has not killed; COLD kills.

    Global Warming Geo-engineering may be the forth largest Industrial Enterprise in the world. Now gents how do you keep this top secret? Well the exact same way you keep global drug running, an even LARGER enterprise, top secret. I mean who would buy the story that our “government” is running drugs, cooling the planet and murdering millions?

    How to murder for fun, depopulation and profit
    http://www.jaymichaelson.net/geoengineering-a-climate-change-manhattan-project/

    How to sell out humanity
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1794

  10. TomC says:

    Also of note, check the terminus of the Petermann Glacier in this map. Same terminus as today.

  11. Blade says:

    One of the greatest posts yet here.

    We should all dig around for old maps and books and scan the parts, post them somewhere and give Steve the links.

  12. Record of Arctic ice melt!

    • gator69 says:

      Chicken Little sure has lost alot of hair!

      Sandy was NOT a hurricane.

      He is quoting dollar figures, and not numbers of storms or intensity. Things cost more as each year goes by, and there are more assets at risk as building continues to keep pace with ever increasing populations.

      F@cking moron.

      • Olaf Koenders says:

        fullbladderthe4th frequents Jo Nova’s site as one of the residential trolls. He’s inherently useful as his sheer lack of I.Q. makes even basalt seem like intelligent life..;)

    • Lou says:

      Yes weather “disasters” are happening at a rate not seen before HAARP went operational circa 1993.

      So the answer is global taxation? How about Global Truth Telling. How about global realization that weather weapons exist and can account for anomalous “hurricanes” that happen to blow in just before an election and allow a “republican” governor to play kissy-face with the “democrat” king seeding another term on the throne. .

      There are at least 19 HAARP like installations world wide.

  13. Davol says:

    Funny how almost everyone can agree that there is a problem in the world with all kinds of deadly toxic pollution destroying the environments of land, water, and air, however the only way we can get anything done about that is to somehow come to an agreement with arguments about nature’s CO2 and the weather.

    • gator69 says:

      Sheep bleat in unison.

      “Bjørn Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace, challenges widely held beliefs that the world environmental situation is getting worse and worse in his new book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. Using statistical information from internationally recognized research institutes, Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues that feature prominently in headline news around the world, including pollution, biodiversity, fear of chemicals, and the greenhouse effect, and documents that the world has actually improved. He supports his arguments with over 2500 footnotes, allowing readers to check his sources. Lomborg criticizes the way many environmental organizations make selective and misleading use of scientific evidence and argues that we are making decisions about the use of our limited resources based on inaccurate or incomplete information. Concluding that there are more reasons for optimism than pessimism, he stresses the need for clear-headed prioritization of resources to tackle real, not imagined, problems.”

      http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0521010683/ref=redir_mdp_mobile

  14. Hans K Johnsen says:

    Steve; The Norwegian Polar institute has a data base maintaining ice data for the Greenland- Spitsbergen – Norway area. You might want to take a look at it. Check out bottom files in Parent directory for user info.
    http://acsys.npolar.no/ahica/quicklooks/

  15. marchesarosa says:

    What time of the year do the National Geographic and the yellow/green comparison maps showing ice-extent represent, please? The Green area hardly looks like minimum ice extent. Is a valid comparison being made?

  16. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I absolutely LOVE blackadderthe4th, he is a paid troll that threadbombs all skeptic sites with the same completely discredited information, and wants us all to think that it is somehow relevant.

    All you have to do is go to the NSIDC website, the DMI website, and MANY other websites, to see that the current ice “loss” in the Arctic is comparable to 2005 and 2006, and that we are currently WELL ABOVE the ice levels seen in 2007 and 2012 (the “lowest years ever”). So some complete and utter DRIVEL posted by the soon-to-be-infamous Blackadderthe4th about RECORD ARCTIC ICE LOSS can be easily completely and thoroughly debunked and refuted by anyone with more than 2 active brain cells in about 30 seconds.

    Not only are we at about the same Arctic ice levels seen in 2005 and 2006, but if you look carefully at the graphs, the RATE OF ICE LOSS has recently SLOWED SIGNIFICANTLY because the polar air temperatures are back at 0 (32 F) far earlier than normal.

  17. marchesarosa says:

    I assume your green area corresponds to the ice extent TODAY. But what day of the year does the National Geographic 1971 ice extent map (yellow) refer to? I can find no reference to a date on the close-ups of the map. Is it a true image of ice extent on a particular date or is it just some calculated average? What is the source? Are the yellow and green areas comparing like with like on the same date? If they are not I do not understand the purpose of your comparison, I’m afraid. Can you explain, please?

  18. marchesarosa says:

    Having looked closely again I see lettering in blue along the edge of the ice in the National Geographic map which states “limit of multi-year ice”. How does this concept, “limit of multi-year ice”, relate to the “15% and 30% sea ice extent” we are used to seeing today? If they are not strictly comparable then what is the point of your green/yellow area comparison, please?

    I take your point that there are various sources of evidence that Arctic sea ice levels were considerably lower at various times in the past prior to the 1979 high point but your green/yellow comparison does not seem to offer any definitive proof of this since the bases of areal comparison do not seem to be the same, to me.

    I think your article would be better if you omitted this National Geographic ice area map and the yellow/green comparison altogether. Your argument stands very well without this (to me) false yellow/green areal comparison which will simply provide ammunition to those who wish to cast doubt on the general point you are making, which, of course, is perfectly valid. You diminish your case by using a less than robust comparison.

    • John B., M.D. says:

      Agree, Steve – elevate your game. You can do it, and we will support you.

    • F. Guimaraes says:

      I think the point of this comparison is to show that the present levels of ice in the Arctic could not be unprecendented, as suggested by the AGW alarmists.
      The precise comparison would have to use a detailed numeric data with similar definitions for ice extent, thickness, “multi-year ice”, etc., to those used today.
      This is probably difficult to obtain for 1971, but if you compare the maps for 1971
      http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=15903

      and 1983
      http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=15610

      you’ll see that the extent is obviously greater in the 2nd map and if you check the data of the Arctic Climate Research for the Arctic ice extent anomaly (July/11/2013)
      http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a532/dhm4444/seaice-arctic-anomaly-13-07-11_zps720be4d4.png

      for 1983 you’ll observe that the ice extent was not abnormally large then and, in fact, it had a negative anomaly at the summer, although not very much, possibly -100 to -200 thousands Km^2 at the peak.
      Therefore, we can use this information to conclude that the anomaly at the peak of the summer of 1971 was even more negative, possibly close to -1 million, as suggested by the IPCC graph of 1990 that Steve posted above (note that there are 3 negative anomalies close to -1 million around 1975 in that graph).
      Now, assuming that we didn’t miss any important aspect of the analysis, we can compare 1971 with present levels and, using the chart that I linked above (showing a negative anomaly ~ -1 million at the beginning of last July), we may conclude that, even considering that the probable minimum of this season will be a little smaller than the present levels, the two ice extents are indeed similar.
      This is interesting if you think that the temperatures in the 1970′s were considerably lower than now,
      http://climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20MAATand3yrAverage%20Global%20NormalisedFor1979-1988.gif

      and the other parts of Steve’s report indicate that Arctic ice had probably an even smaller extent during some seasons before 1971.
      In this case, what has happened with the Arctic icecap in recent years, with strong oscillations of ice extent and large negative anomalies, is probably not unprecedented and could have happened (very similarly, although not necessarily at the same level) just a few decades ago.

    • F. Guimaraes says:

      Conclusion: IMO, the comparison is “robust”! :-)

  19. marchesarosa says:

    Steve says, “by the end of September it will all be multi-year ice”.

    Then perhaps that would be the appropriate time to make the comparison between NOW and 1971? Just a suggestion.

  20. Paul says:

    There is no indication what month that 1971 map represents. Or is it an average of summer & winter as i suspect. How do you know you are not comparing summer sea ice in 1971 with winter sea ice in 2013? Arctic sea ice increases & decreases considerably over the year. You have to ensure you are comparing like months and you also have to ensure that the years you are comparing are not exceptional years in one direction or another. You can see this common error by looking at the official graph for Arctic sea ice over the years below. If you take the years 1984 & 1997, for example, you can easily conclude sea ice is growing, unless you look at the whole picture. Unfortunately this graph does not go back as far as 1971, but the trend is obvious.

    http://www.oceansnorth.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2012SeptSeaIceExtent_current_0.png

    • It shows that Arctic alarmism is getting its butt kicked in 2013.

      • Paul says:

        How so? I see no valid comparison. I am not what you refer to as an alarmist. I want to get at the truth. I don’t care what that proves, as long as it is based on valid scientific evidence, not assumptions, and I see nothing in your map comparisons that indicates it is a valid comparison of the same time of year or even system of measurement. I don’t even know if its 1971, just the map was published in Nat Geo in 1971. It could be 1970 or 1968 or whatever. There is no indication of what month it represents, we are talking sea ice which is highly variable, not the land based icepack which is accumulative. If you can come up with valid comparisons based on identical criteria, that is another matter, but I do not see that happening here.

        In other words, there is no “control”, a basic scientific principle of conformation, in your conclusions.

        • The only reason that this appears confusing, is because there is a small group of high profile “scientists” who consistently lie and tamper with the data sets.

        • Paul says:

          What are their names? And what are their motivations? If they are receiving funding from maybe a corporation, I can see bias, after all they are human. The tobacco industry had plenty of “scientists” claiming smoking was good for you. That is why there is a peer review process in place.

  21. Paul says:

    BTW Stephen, just out of curiosity what are your qualifications? Do you have a degree in meteorology or physics or any of the earth sciences, or are you a layman. I would like to know if I am discussing science with a qualified scientist or just a blogger.

  22. Paul says:

    Sorry Stephen, not good enough. I do have a degree in physics and this field is even too complex for me to make head or tail of without specialized training as i am sure climate scientist feels about understanding the back scattering of beta particles. There are hundreds of factors at play here and seasonal variations caused by things like el ninos, have to factored out. I did find out that there was no satellite measurement of sea ice prior to 1979, so estimates on it are based on local observations on specific arctic areas, so it is of course no fair comparison to 2103 as there is no common baseline. Furthermore, we are only in Aug 2013 and the standard month of comparison for sea ice extent is September which has not yet occurred, so any comparisons of 1971 with 2013 are invalid, regardless. The Canadian government has issued its estimates for 2013 (see http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=56&ved=0CEsQFjAFODI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcus.org%2Ffiles%2Fsearch%2Fsea-ice-outlook%2F2013%2F06%2Fpdf%2Fpan-arctic%2Fcanadianiceservice.pdf&ei=UyIDUp6_LM7YyAGirIF4&usg=AFQjCNGvNQ0pj1cMbwMRT5cgWEM_nb05pw&cad=rja) which may or may not be born out when the data comes in.

    Now i do not profess that scientists are always correct, after all they go the extinction of the dinosaurs wrong. However the standard scientific method and the process of peer review ensures that the data they gather is as accurate as possible and certainly no layman can claim whether they are right or wrong. There will always be dissent about any scientific claim and that is healthy. However, policies need to be formulated on what the bulk of the evidence indicates as that is the only basis we can operate on barring confirmable evidence to the contrary . Current evidence indicates the planet is warming, possibly at an alarming rate. Whether or not we are responsible you can debate, but if we are smart we will start preparing to have to make adjustments to it, or our civilization may be jeopardy. Civilizations have fallen in the past over a lot less than this. Maybe Yellowstone will blow and make all this a moot point.

      • Paul says:

        Steven, First of all the terms “alarmists” and “denier” apply to those who have made a scientific field of endeavor into a political football. Just like I would not entrust surgery to a layman, I do not entrust opinions on this subject to people who have no training or qualifications, and that is usually what you find when you scratch the surface of people who are most vocal on it. I do try to follow the money in most cases. When you look at funding you can usually ascertain bias. Regardless, this particular subject has the potential to affect life on this planet or at the every least the survival of our current civilization and it is not a subject that political biases should be controlling. My attitude is show me the data, and show me the confirmation by other scientists. Qualified scientists. This subject is a little more subjective than some, since the earth is a dynamic system with many variables and feedback mechanisms at play, so quantitative data is hard to come by, and it has to be tracked over many years in order to see the trends. This makes the subject very susceptible to what is know as cherry picking, which is to pick 2 specific points at 2 specific times and try to draw a conclusion over a long time period, eliminating all the points in between. It is a very effective way of trying to prove a point. Is is science? No. This is why when I see a comparison of data between 2 specific years, in your case 1971 & 2013, the alarm bells go off. It is the same way on the other side of the issue, when a major weather event like Katrina is pointed to as an example of warming. A sympton maybe, but until you have demonstrable trend over time, you have no proof. With weather you have to look at the number of records broken on an annual basis and determine if those are on the increase or not. A common misconception is that global warming means more droughts, high temps etc. that is not the case, Global warming in theory should shift current weather patterns so we should be looking for weather in areas where it would not normally occur and extremes in both directions.

      • Paul says:

        You cannot use data from 2 different methods of collection and draw conclusion. You are working from 2 different baselines. I have no idea of the methodology employed by the current satellite as opposed o the earlier won which was not configured specifically to measure arctic sea ice. Regardless you have an apples & oranges situation. It is like trying to measure quantum effects using Newtonian physics.

        I am getting the impression Steven that you have absolutely no scientific background or that you are trying to deceive people with a rather atrocious use of accepted scientific methodology & controls. You seem like a bright enough guy, so I am thinking that maybe you are viewing this subject from a political aspect rather than a scientific one. If so, that puts you into the same group as Al Gore. There is no room for emotion or politics in pure science.

        • I can see that you are just here to make noise.

        • gator69 says:

          “Paul says:
          August 8, 2013 at 3:41 pm

          You cannot use data from 2 different methods of collection and draw conclusion.”

          Maybe you should find Michael Mann’s twitter account and let him know.

        • Claims that sea level rise has increased are based on changing measurement systems form tide gauges to satellites

          The Hockey stick is based on changing from tree rings to tampered thermometer data

          That is the state of “peer reviewed” science

        • kuhnkat says:

          Paul stated in part:

          “You cannot use data from 2 different methods of collection and draw conclusion”

          Then you must agree with us that the official temperature records are useless as they are sliced and diced from numerous instruments and methods that have little in common.

        • Dave says:

          How can you *measure* quantum effects using Newtonian physics? You don’t measure quantum effects with a paradigm. You use quantum physics to explain experimental results.

    • Paul says:

      Steven you are quoting your own blog as references, that does not count. lets see some references form peer reviewed journals.

      • My articles use official government data. Read them. What are you afraid of?

      • Paul says:

        I did read them, all I see there are graphs you have cherry picked and references to your own material. In some cases you have highlighted specific points in graphs to accentuate your own bias. You provide no links to the original graphs so we have no idea if you have doctored them or imposed your own interpretation upon them. We have no idea in most cases who produced them and in what context the data was gathered and over what period. All I see are interpretations you appear to have absolutely no qualifications, by your own admission, to make. I would not expect a doctor to be able to interpret my own data in particle physics, and I certainly would not expect you to be qualified to interpret data from a climatologist unless you happen to be one, which you have indicated you are not. Neither can I. If gather data and draw conclusion, I submit it to others in the field for confirmation, not to a layman writing a blog. When I follow your references I just go in a big circle on your own blog. Sorry, I see no substance here. certainly no science.

        • As far as I can tell, you are a political ideologue with an agenda and no interest in science.

        • Paul says:

          No, In fact I hope whom you refer to as “alarmists” are wrong. I am, however, a scientist and I find the “science” on this blog appalling. Show me some actual science with apropriate references to peer reviewed science, and we can have a serious discussion on its validilty. Otherwise this is all an exercise in futility.

        • You are completely full of shit. Everything here is based on raw data and you are either too dense or unwilling to look at it.

        • Paul says:

          Like I said, lets see the data. I am a scientist, i want facts not biased interpretation of them. BTW of course there is natural climate change, we can & have adapted to that. the problem is not climate change, it is climate change too rapid to adjust to. Today the planet has 6 billion people. During the last ice age it had a few hundred thousand. Migration to better areas was possible. it is not possible today which is why the prospect of rapid climate change is alarming. I am not yet convinced it is happening as rapidly as many claim, but bulk of evidence indicates it is happening, at least over the last 50 years. In some ways our control over particulate pollution may ironically be contributing as particulates have a cooling effect and particulate pollution was a big factor since the start of the industrial revolution until about 50 years ago. It is likely it was a cancelling factor against CO2 levels.

          BTW as far as refuting natural variability, why would anyone want to do that? We all know that exists. What has to be looked at is the period of those cycles and everything I have looked at on this subject indicates that there is another factor at play against the background noise of natural variability. We have no evidence in the past of rapid climate change apart from that invoked by super volcanoes and things of that nature. There are no factors of that nature at play over the last hundred years or so, apart from Krakatoa, which had a cooling effect, at least short term. If someone can point out a natural process that is responsible for the average land & ocean temperature increase we are observing, I would like to hear about it. And yes, I have heard about solar activity, but that is also measurable and can be factored in. .

          Regardless it is very apparent that most on this blog are more interested in politics than science, so back to my lab.

        • gator69 says:

          Wow Steven! Paul read years worth of your posts on climate data in less than 26 minutes! That or he is a lying zealot…

        • Paul says:

          When I start to see references like “lying bastard”, it becomes apparent to me that no one here is interested in serious discussion on an issue, but are simply lecturing dogma. Therefore it is waste of time, i am outta here.

          been a slice.

        • Paul says:

          Of course I have not read years of his posts. I read some of the ones he linked and all I see are references back to himself, so far. That is not science.

          This is a blog, and from what I can see, a highly politically biased one at that. That is apparent by posts on subjects that do not have to do with climate as well. I do happen to be a Republican, but I can certainly recognize propaganda when I see it.

        • gator69 says:

          Steven does not collect his own data, if you read AND understood his posts you would get that. Some scientist! :lol:

          And your political party sucks.

        • Ben says:

          Paul: “You provide no links to the original graphs…”

          Bwahahahaahahahaha… 1000+ links to original peer reviewed science, government data, government graphs isn’t enough for you?

          Nothing embarrasses Mann/Hansen more than links to their own contradictory research. That is Steve’s specialty.

          Thank goodness for the wayback machine. They cannot escape the truth.

          Unfortunately, Paul, you can continue to ignore it.

        • Paul says:

          If data is correct and I can find a link to its original source rather than an interpretation of it here, i will consider it. No one here appears to have the qualifications or training to interpret data or at least they have not stated them. I would not go to a layman to diagnose a medical problem and I would not go to layman to diagnose climatic data. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not everyone is qualified to come to the correct one. When I first posted here I gave this blog the benefit of the doubt that is was a place where intelligent conversation could take place, however it appears that there are few here actually want to discuss the pros & cons of the debate, they have already made up their minds. It reminds me of medieval flat earthers. Science is all about questioning and investigating, not trying to find evidence based on preconceived dogma. People who do that are like creationists trying to prove the earth is 6000 years old.

        • Latitude says:

          Paul, you have arrived very late to the game…..for the most part, we are all sick and tired of discussing the pros and cons of the “debate”…
          To us, after all this time, lies, mangling of past records, adjusting temps up for UHI, adjusting the bottom of the ocean up and down…
          After 30 years, people that still want to debate this crap, that are still seaking “evidence”…
          …are the medieval flat earthers, holding on to their preconceived dogma

        • gator69 says:

          God what a pain!

          Paul, one of the gifts of using a pseudonym is that it erases all of who or what I am and allows us to discuss the facts.

          FACT: There is absolutely nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, or how we got here.

          FACT: There has never been a single peer reviewed paper written, out of thousands over decades, that disproves natural variability as the cause of recent or ANY global climate changes.

          FACT: The IPCC admitted in AR4 that they have ‘low’ to ‘very low’ understanding of about 80% of KNOWN climate forcings.

          FACT: The only thing the fat cat climate fraudsters can point to is their models, and fudged numbers, they have zero empirical evidence of anything other than changing climates.

          FACT: Climates change.

          Given these FACTS you are an idiot to believe anything the heavily funded natural climate deniers tell you.

          I hesitate to tell you this, because it really has no bearing on the FACTS, but I was a climatology student three decades ago. I spent many years in the Earth Sciences department and have read virtually every paper ever written on climate, and that is why I KNOW you are FOS.

          If you had any scientific training of value, you would not be parroting the grantologists.

          In your world, John Muir and the Wright brothers contributed nothing to science.

          You are a self inflicted idiot who has not produced ONE SHRED of evidence of anything other than your blind allegiance to central planning.

          Disprove NV, or you have nothing.

    • shazaam says:

      Hey Paul, I know you are addressing your remarks to Steve. However, let me toss my nickels worth into the fray.

      Educational credentials mean almost nothing to anyone outside of government.

      Let me repeat that for clarity.

      Educational credentials mean almost nothing to anyone outside of government.

      Now you may ask why I would say such a thing. I’m a controls engineer. An odd-ball specialty that has exposed me to many over-educated idiots and the messes they have created over the last 30-odd years. The educated idiots fail time and time again by attempting to force theory to function in a world that often rejects their ideal system theories.

      Many is the time I’ve seen very expensive industrial or laboratory systems where the Phd consultant was certain the test equipment had been built incorrectly because it would not function to their model (theories). And in the great majority of the time, the precise calculations would only work in an ideal (theoretical) world. Such a waste of time and effort. When I get called in to fix things, I don’t get paid nearly what the educated idiot was paid. And when I’m done, the equipment works. Often the model simply could not handle real life process disturbances.

      In one case the PhD’s extremely complex temperature control system (to increase a temperature at a constant rate) could never work because that model could not accommodate the heat generated by the devices being tested since there was no way to calculate that heat generation accurately enough. (different model partss had different temperature characteristics and different tests used different volumes of test fluid which must also be heated) The project was 3 years late and didn’t work. The replacement control system faced reality and didn’t care about quantifying the test part heating or how much test fluid was in the system. And it worked.

      Thus, from long experience and exposure to a multitude of credentialed “experts” I have no respect for educational credentials. When working on a factory floor to analyze the production bottlenecks the most effective approach is to talk with the production workers and solicit their opinions. For some reason, PhD’s are illogically adverse to talking to people who get their hands dirty, and instead prefer to “model” the system and pin-point the problem indirectly. The PhD approach is certainly is great for running-up their billable hours. And it rarely works. The guys working on the plant floor aren’t stupid. They know where the problems lie. All you have to do is ask them for their help. The PhD’s by contrast demonstrate time and time again that they prefer to live in the world of theory. Divorced from messy reality that refuses to conform to their ideal models.

      So, let me condense that into plain and simple English for you.

      Educational credentials are simply proof that an individual was able to parrot enough theory to the satisfaction of the educational establishment to “earn” a degree. In most technical fields, a degree is proof that a student knows how to do math and work hard, and is no reliable indicator that they are truly capable. The old adage “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach” is painfully true.

      The global cooling hoopla worked the population into a frenzy and, when it didn’t pan out, morphed into global warming… Many people I talk to think that the climate modelers are genuine over-educated idiots. Despite the models and the constant bombardment by the press with pronouncements of climatological doom, people believe what they experience. And the trend of experience vs. models isn’t good for the modelers.

      Climate modeling appears to be akin to shaking the chicken bones onto a mat and attempting to read the future in the pattern made by those bones. Except, unlike the witch doctor, the true climatologist will re-arrange the bones to get the result he or she wants. And much of the general population has not been fooled by the scam. Watch out for the fury when those who have been fooled lash-out against the scammers.

      The increasing climate hysterics are a good thing as far as I’m concerned. The public confidence in the “experts” is declining. The economic “experts” have been blind-sided time and time again by reality. The climate “experts” are also being blind-sided time and time again by reality.

      We are rapidly approaching a time when, should a politician or newsreader trot out an “expert” to bolster his/her case for something, the response of the general public will be to laugh.

      And that ridicule has been well and truly earned.

      • Andy Oz says:

        Hear hear Shazaam. While a university degree is nice piece of paper, all it shows is that the student is a good repeater rather than a free thinker.

  23. Chewer says:

    The level of confidence in C02′s forcing contributions within the scientific community is weak, but the ranting’s of the most boisterous are the ones who sell and make the news (the squeaky wheel always gets the grease).
    The measurements from what is measurable are lacking in every single aspect of the geophysical world as it relates to climatology. I have asked many questions to those with PhD’s in physics that are unanswerable, because our basic techniques and our abilities and means of gathering and comparing data is at the Neanderthal level.
    From the solar influences (particle matter & wide array of incoming wavelength strengths, speeds, phasing & accompanying constituents) to the inhouse atmospheric constituents lifespans, mixing levels & amounts present at heights, the internal temperature fluctuations of the planet’s core (over it’s 875,000 year cycle) to the evolving variations (in content, susceptibility to EMF’s, dwell time, etc..) of all spheres that dwell within our own magnetosphere, that are acted upon and totally influenced via internal & external forces.
    The polar regions seafloors to surface temperature changes are not and never have been constant, the tectonic dynamics, the PDO, AMOC, MEI, AO, NAO, IO Dipole, Antarctic Stream, etc.. exhibit phase stability & instabilities and reversal type changes, which are noted within the planetary ocean circulation are not understood at all, yet the criminals profess a definitive understanding of our climate.
    The contents from the core of our earth to those at the end of the Universe (which has no end), are in constant and perpetual change and we can measure slightly more than zero of them!
    People need to tell the professors of doom to STFU, and the sooner the better!

    • Paul says:

      CO2 is in many ways a self linting issue. The negative effects of CO2 decrease as concentration increases up to a point with a runaway effect takes place. We are far short of that. The big unknown is methane, and there is controversy over that one as well. We know the earth had far higher concentrations of CO2 in the past, but on the other hand it was also a planet more suitable for reptiles than mammals at that time.

      I think we need to stop worrying about the survival of life on this planet, that is definitely “alarmist”. We need instead to worry about survival of human as a species or at least survival of our current civilization. We know for example that humans were reduced to a few thousand breeding couples following the Mt Toba super volcano, so we know humans are resilient, however any factor that destroys or severely damages our civilization is bound to be unpleasant for the survivors which may be your own grad children. So in that regard, climate change whether man made or not is something we all need to be concerned about. Whether we can do anything about it or not, even if it is man made, is of course the main question

      • Paul says:

        BTW I apologize for my poor typing, its early and I need more coffee.

      • For almost all of the last 600 million years, CO2 was much higher, Life survived just fine.

        Neurosis is not science.

        • Paul says:

          Yes, dinosaurs and reptiles. Oxygen levels were also much higher then, BTW. It is not life I am concerned about, its human life. The earth will go on with some sort of life long after we are gone, until the sun expands. Chances are it won’t be human or any variation of human, however. We will have long before been wiped out, be it climate change, an asteroid strike, or something else, unless we have managed to spread ourselves elsewhere.

          If we are responsible for climate change (notice I said if), now or in the future, then that is a bad thing. There are enough natural hazards form asteroids to super volcanoes waiting to destroy us without us adding one of our own.

        • The IR absorption spectrum is almost completely saturated in all CO2 bands. Additional CO2 has almost no effect on the radiative transfer balance.

        • Paul says:

          Finally, something accurate. You are correct to a point.

        • Ben says:

          Paul: “Finally, something accurate. You are correct to a point.”

          Finally? Funny, the prior statement was also accurate, else we would not be having this conversation.

          Steve: “For almost all of the last 600 million years, CO2 was much higher, Life survived just fine.”

        • Latitude says:

          Yes, dinosaurs and reptiles…..
          ROTFL….so all the scientific peer reviewed articles on certain reptiles going extinct because of climate change

  24. gator69 says:

    Paul is obviously new to this game. He had fallen for the biggest lie, that climates need man to change. We have witnessed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING outside of natural variability. Paul does not understand that EVERY SINGLE ALARMIST CLAIM is based upon models, and/or ‘adjusted’ data.

    Paul also likes to appeal to ‘authority’ and what he calls ‘peer’ review. And I challenge him like all those sheep that have come before, to please submit EVEN ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent or ANY global climate changes.

    Not one person has ever met this challenge, let’s see if Paul tilts at windmills too. :lol:

    • Paul says:

      I responded on natural variability in another post by mistake. No one is denying natural variability. It is the background noise. The problem is that the current trend is rapid and is not traceable to any natural event. If it is a natural cycle then there has to be a factor behind it and why it is occurring with the rapidity it is? What is it, the sun, volcanoes, the earths orbit? What is the source of higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?

      • gator69 says:

        It’s called natural variability, or the ‘null hypothesis’, Mr Scientist. Sorry for calling you a liar, I didn’t know that you were just stupid.

        Nothing we see is outside of NV, unless you are looking at models or ‘adjusted’ data.

      • kuhnkat says:

        Paul,

        after apparently hours of hot air I am wondering where YOUR DATA and where YOUR PEER REVIEWIED Science is located. Amazingly enough, with all your bad mouthing of SG, YOU, have contributed NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL. YOU have contributed YOUR OPINION as a self professed scientist.

        Thanks for absolutely wasting everyone’s time.

  25. gator69 says:

    “Paul says:
    August 8, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    When I start to see references like “lying bastard”, it becomes apparent to me that no one here is interested in serious discussion on an issue, but are simply lecturing dogma…”

    I said lying ‘zealot’, and I meant it. I have no idea what happened at your birth.

    PAUL CAN’T READ! Won’t you please send money now, to buy Paul an education.

    • Paul says:

      Sorry my mistake, regardless that is the second expletive so I have concluded that people here are not interested in discussing, just spouting dogma. Usually when people start using expletives, it indicates they are hardly interested in discussion. I was hoping people actually wanted to discuss science. I was mistaken, so I’m outta here. .

      • gator69 says:

        “Paul says:
        August 8, 2013 at 4:48 pm
        Sorry my mistake, regardless that is the second expletive…”

        PLEASE SEND MONEY TODAY! :lol:

        • Justa Joe says:

          They asked Paul to put up or shut up, and well… you see what happened.

        • Paul says:

          Climate models are just that,. models, they may or may not reflect reality. As far as climate change is concerned, the bulk of evidence indicates it is happening. Many of those who do not believe that it is man made also agree it is occurring. In my mind the only debate is over how much of it is due to us, and how much of it is natural. There is no doubt the polar ice cap is receding. The question is why and is it reversible? I hope no one here is denying it is shrinking? If so they really have binders on. The debate is over the cause, Not whether it is happening or not, because it very obviously is. The nW passage is now navigable.

        • The bulk of evidence indicates that Chicago is no longer buried under a mile of ice, and that the record heat and drought of the 1930s has ended. Do you have anything to say which relates to science?

          The Northwest Passage is blocked with ice and global sea ice area has been above normal almost all year. You have no idea what you are talking about, and it is abundantly obvious that you do not read this blog.

      • Latitude says:

        uh, Paul…..you’re not…..that’s the problem

        “I was hoping people actually wanted to discuss science. I was mistaken, so I’m outta here. .”

  26. Latitude says:

    I stopped reading when Paul contradicted himself……

    “Now i do not profess that scientists are always correct, after all they go the extinction of the dinosaurs wrong. However the standard scientific method and the process of peer review ensures that the data they gather is as accurate as possible and certainly no layman can claim whether they are right or wrong.”

  27. Climatism says:

    “Paul says:
    August 8, 2013 at 4:27 pm
    the prospect of rapid climate change is alarming. I am not yet convinced it is happening as rapidly as many claim, but bulk of evidence indicates it is happening,”

    Prospects, alarming, could be, might be, maybe, indicates, bulk, claims blah blah blah..

    As a scientist Paul, do you rely on ANY observable data (official government data like from this site) or empirical-evidence to draw your possible, maybe conclusions? or do you simply rely on climate models, fudged data and alarmist hysteria from the Guardian and the BBC, parroted daily to willing alarmists yearning for thermageddon and climate catastrophe?

  28. @njsnowfan says:

    This Arctic Ice Growth Since 1971 needs to be put up top with Hide the decline.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s