Climate Alarmists Repeating The Same Nonsense Since Nixon Was President

ScreenHunter_02 Mar. 22 00.21

02 Feb 1972 – Scientists fear for Arctic Sea ice

About stevengoddard

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

137 Responses to Climate Alarmists Repeating The Same Nonsense Since Nixon Was President

  1. Note that 1972 was before the beginning of the supposed global temperature rise (starting around 1975, and lasting only until around 2000) of the “global warming” scare. So you’re quite right, they (the UN) were putting out the same nonsense well before they had/developed the evidence of increasing global mean surface temperature.

  2. Lazarus says:

    “. . global temperature increases produced by man’s injection of heat and carbon dioxide into the environment could greatly reduce or even eliminate Arctic sea ice.”

    Well here is one long-range prediction that is proving scarily accurate.

    • Arctic sea ice area is normal and near a 10 year high. Hansen showed Arctic temperatures far below normal in February. Are you an idiot?

    • gator69 says:

      In laz’s world melting ice is proof of AGW.

    • Lazarus says:

      Obviously Steven there will be ice in the Arctic in winter just as there will be ice in the Minnesota ponds and lakes during winter. No scientist expects winter ice to disappear unless the earth turns into a baked potato. The disappearance of the Arctic ice will happen when the sun shines on it. I chose mid-September because that is when the sun begins to disappear again. Do you have a better date in mind?

      • darwin says:

        I don’t understand why you believe Arctic ice must remain at a set volume.

      • Can you provide a data source with sea ice extent in September, 2013? Perhaps ouija.com?

      • miked1947 says:

        Laz:
        Does that mean the world will return to the more agreeable state it was in 1500 years ago or even the warmer conditions that were experienced some 5000 years ago, when trees were actually able to grow near the Arctic Circle and there was much less frozen tundra. That was the time when the current Sahara Desert was savanna and forests. That was the time when there were fewer glaciers in the Alps and people could live year round in Greenland.
        It would be nice if the world could again experience those types of weather patterns. Why do you think it would be a problem to have greater biological diversity on this globe?

      • Lazarus says:

        Steve,
        Ouija as in ouija board? Is your question supposed to make sense?

        What about my question? What date would you choose to verify the prediction made by those 50 scientists in your article above?

      • Tell me what sea ice area or extent will be in mid-September 2013.

      • Lazarus says:

        Glacierman,
        I don’t know what other factors were in place during that period. Perhaps feedbacks did go berserk and that is why the CO2 levels were so high. Was the earth’s orbit different so that there was less solar radiation? Were there more volcanic eruptions so there was more particulates in the air? Was there a polar ice cap at the time?

        4000ppm without a context is a meaningless number.

      • leftinbrooklyn says:

        darwin says:
        ‘I don’t understand why you believe Arctic ice must remain at a set volume.’

        As if it ever has.

    • ROFL – Obama’s science adviser predicted ice-free winters

      …if you lose the summer sea ice, there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well. And if you lose that sea ice year round, it’s going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere.

      http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/02/complete-barking-madness-from-john.html

  3. David says:

    so accurate that their are thousands of Manhattsns more sea ice then average right now

  4. Scott says:

    After the record low arctic sea ice in 2012 there was record high ice growth (you can just look at the plots on Cryoshere today and see the steep incline). This does not indicate a net positive feedback. It indicates a negative feedback. Why have I not seen anyone point this out? If the dark ocean was absorbing so much heat from the sun was the main factor in the feedbacks then the ocean would not refreeze at record pace.

    • miked1947 says:

      At the angle the sun hits the water, after the middle of September, most of the energy is reflected back into space. That dark water is like a mirror.

      • There is no sun at the North Pole in the middle of September.,

        • miked1947 says:

          We are discussing the Arctic REGION, not the POLE! 😉

        • miked1947 says:

          The sun at the North Pole is continuously above the horizon during the summer and continuously below the horizon during the winter. Sunrise is just before the March equinox (around March 19); the sun then takes three months to reach its highest point of near 23½° elevation at the summer solstice (around June 21), after which time it begins to sink, reaching sunset just after the September equinox (around September 24). When the sun is visible in the polar sky, it appears to move in a horizontal circle above the horizon. This circle gradually rises from near the horizon just after the vernal equinox to its maximum elevation (in degrees) above the horizon at summer solstice and then sinks back toward the horizon before sinking below it at the autumnal equinox.
          A civil twilight period of about two weeks occurs before sunrise and after sunset, a nautical twilight period of about five weeks occurs before sunrise and after sunset and an astronomical twilight period of about seven weeks occurs before sunrise and after sunset.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole

        • miked1947 says:

          Steven
          6 months of sun and 6 months of dark at the North Pole, to be precise.

      • It is cloudy at the North Pole most of the time, so even during the summer they get very little direct sunlight.

      • miked1947 says:

        I was discussing the albedo of water versus ice. I agree with you about normal weather conditions in that region. The issue is, many believe than less ice results in more energy absorption and that is not the case, for many reasons. Not the least of which is the angle of the sun or lack of sun.

      • Lazarus says:

        Steve,
        In terms of how much energy will be absorbed into the environment — yes, the potential energy uptake in winter is dwarfed by the summer potential. And, as I have made clear on numerous occasions, the winter ice could be razor thin or covering 1/7th of the area being measured. Just like last year, you have made endless posts about how much winter ice has recovered and those posts turned out to be irrelevant to what occurred in late summer.

        What is relevant is ice volume and we will know that by how quickly the ice melts and how much it melts and, consequently, we can also know how much extra radiation will be absorbed into the environmental system.

        Now that is very relevant.

      • Lazarus says:

        Steve,
        “The September minimum occurs after the sun has set. The sun is at its peak in June.”

        What post does your statement relate to?

        While you are at it, why don’t you tell us all what date is usually the date of the Arctic ice minimum and what date is when the North Pole sees no sun?

      • ROFL. Almost exactly the same date.

    • Lazarus says:

      Scott,
      This year’s winter ice never returned to the 1979 to 2000 mean. And as sea ice is measured as an area of 15% actual ice, that means it is possible that there was 85% water yet it was still counted.

      The pond I grew up next to was covered in ice every winter, but some years the ice was too thin to skate on and it melted much sooner also. Because the Arctic ocean is so huge, an early melt will absorb a lot more energy into the environment. That is why, as my wife will tell you, thickness matters. That is also why these constant posts by Steven Goddard on winter ice extent really are a red herring and don’t actually carry much significance.

      • The Arctic is dark and -10 to -30C for six months. Last month it was 6C below normal. Spare us the BS.

      • Lazarus says:

        Steve,
        As I have said before, you stop posting about these irrelevant winter ice extent numbers and I will stop commenting on them.

        Why don’t we just wait for the late summer numbers on Arctic extent and volume and then talk again? Deal?

      • Winter is irrelevant for ice? ROFLMAO You are the ultimate cherry picker.

      • David says:

        Laz, does your pond have vast atmospheric pressure changes, wind pattern that move the ice to large openings, and ocean currents that also bring in faster and warmer waters accelerating the flow of ice from your little pond?

        You CO2 nuts are mental midget ponds, without room for more then one thought, so happy to have managed one thought, “CO2 controls everything” that you refuse to let go of it ,lest your mental pond remain completely empty. Better to have one thought in the old pond, even if terribly wrong, then have none at all.

      • Glacierman says:

        David: Don’t forget icebreakers. I know the warmists say out of one side of their mouth that they don’t matter, while saying out of the other that Arctic ice is the most precious resource on Earth and we are destroying it by driving to work.

    • Lazarus says:

      Steve,
      You just made 3 statements in 3 posts one after the other.

      You say that “The September minimum occurs after the sun has set.” but then in another post you say that the minimum and North Pole sunset happen on “Almost exactly the same date.”

      So which statement is correct?

      In another post you say “There is no sun at the North Pole in the middle of September” but, according to this website — http://www.athropolis.com/sun-fr.htm — the sun doesn’t actually set at the North Pole until late September (the 24th) and according to the NSIDC, the usual date for Arctic ice minimums is September 13 — more than a week and a half BEFORE the North Pole sunset.

      Do you see the problem here Steve? Nothing you say adds up.

      • Why don’t you take your Ex-Lax. You are clearly anal retentive. You are nitpicking about miindless bullshit which makes absolutely no difference to the discussion. This tells me that you are an idiot and an asshole,

      • Glacierman says:

        Lazarus: How much sun does the North Pole recieve between Sept. 15 and Sept. 24? Do you assert that that much solar irradiance controls the climate?

      • Lazarus says:

        Thank you Gator69, but I didn’t pull your string — that question was for Brad.

      • Glacierman says:

        Lazarus: If your big concern is the amount of energy the system absorbs from sunlight because there is less ice, then why does it refreeze so fast? Shouldn’t it be warm?

        Oh, now I get it. The warm water sinks to the bottom of the cold ocean and hides where Trenberth found it. Man those positives feedbacks are really going to go berserk and bake the planet like a potato when all that hear comes roaring out of the cold ocean depths.

      • Lazarus says:

        Steve,
        I am frankly amazed at your response. You run a site named “Real Science” and yet you apparently don’t care about accuracy. Nit picking is precisely what real scientists do.

  5. gator69 says:

    Scott,
    Your age never returned to the 1979 to 2000 mean. And as age is measured as the passing of time, that means it is impossible that you will be 85% of the age you were last year.

    That proves AGW. 😉

  6. David says:

    Laz, “In oceanic minds the whales of inspiration make hardly a ruffle, in small minds the little fish of CO2 cause a great deal of commotion.”

  7. Brad says:

    C’mon Laz, answer the question. Look into your crystal ball and tell us what you believe the ice extent in the Arctic will be on September 15th? Will there be at least one Ice Cube floating around up there? Will the Arctic be Ice Free as in no ice? None? Nada? What is your definition of Ice Free. Please explain if you can.

    • Lazarus says:

      Brad,
      Based on the trend of ice volume over the past 30+ years and the US Navy’s report on extensive slushy ice, I predict that the Arctic ice extent and volume will be amongst the lowest 5 years in the satellite record by mid-September.

      Unfortunately, that also means we will have absorbed another huge dose of solar radiation into the environmental system — just as those 50 scientists in Steve’s article predicted.

      What is your prediction Steve?

      • Lazarus says:

        BTW, I apologize for getting these posts out of sequence — too many people asking too many questions..

      • Brad says:

        Has the arctic been “ice free” in the past 100 years or so?

      • Lazarus says:

        Brad,
        What is the point of asking a question you already know the answer to?

      • miked1947 says:

        Laz:
        You got it completely wrong! At the angle of incidence the sun’s energy strikes the ocean in the arctic region after the ice minimum and even at the middle of Summer when the sun is 23.5 degrees above the horizon, if the clouds allow the sun to hit the water the water will act like a mirror and reflect the energy back into space.

      • T.O.O. says:

        Miked1947,
        Wouldn’t that make sense only if the water were flat?. Wouldn’t waves or swells cause some of the ocean to be inclined to a setting sun? Granted, the amount of solar radiation is relatively small at that time of year (thus to reason for re-icing). however, I go back to my point of low ice volume as that would mean more open water earlier in the summer where solar radiation is much higher.

  8. Brad says:

    It is a specific question. Has the Arctic been “ice free” in the past 100 years? If it occured, was it a catastrophe?

  9. Lazarus says:

    Steve,
    I take it that I have been black listed for being accurate. Not a quality you admire I guess.

  10. gator69 says:

    “Lazarus says:
    March 22, 2013 at 4:00 pm
    Thank you Gator69, but I didn’t pull your string — that question was for Brad.”

    Laz, you couldn’t find string with both left hands! But I sure enjoy pulling alarmists’ chains, and listening to them whine.

    Thanks! 😆

    Red steam? 😆

  11. squid2112 says:

    Lazarus, in part I agree with you about Steve’s 50 posts on the Arctic, but only because personally I don’t think it makes a shit bit of difference to anything whether or not there is any ice in the Arctic at anytime, period.

    I think Steve’s Arctic ice posts are pretty much irrelevant, however, I do enjoy reading them, so keep posting them Steve! .. not to mention the fact that it sets off the alarmists like Lazarus, like crazy, and that in itself is worth the posts.

    Cheers… 🙂

  12. RealOldOne2 says:

    Steve,
    I saw the large # of comments & I figured that rotten Appell was at it again, but low & behold it’s another idiot! Lazarus, who I pwned on his own blog when he spun lies about your sea level comments. Lazarus demonstrated total ineptness, insanity w/a big dose of ad homs. I summarized my experience w/Lazarus as follows:

    “Lazarus, I came here because I read some pretty scathing things about you on Goddard’s blog where you were posting. Such things as: “You are coming across as being a complete idiot”, “Lazarus, you are an idiot”, “Lazarus, you are scum”, “Do you enjoy behaving like a flaming ahole?”
    Being an open-minded scientist, I was skeptical that someone could really be that bad. So I thought I’d do my own experiment & make a fact-based post on your blog pointing out a couple simple things you got wrong, to see what your response would be.
    Well, I have to thank you for giving me more than enough data to draw these concrete conclusions:
    1)Goddard was too polite and spoke too highly of you in his descriptions of you.
    2)You care nothing about science, facts & data because you are an ideologue.
    3)You don’t listen or hear what others are telling you because you’re filtering everything through your CAGW colored lenses.
    4)You are becoming more & more irrational as mother nature doesn’t cooperate & disproves your CO2-based pseudoscience.
    5)You are hopelessly floundering in cognitive dissonance caused by your CAGW cargo-cult(save the world) pseudoscientific religion.
    6)You stubbornly refuse to admit any error, like your fellow CAGW true-believers.
    7)You relentlessly attack anyone who disagrees with you with insults & smears.
    8)You go round & round in circles with endless insanities when someone actually engages you in discussions because you are so lonesome you don’t really want them to leave you all by yourself.
    9)You are a Gleicker! When you can’t find fault from what someone says, you make fake stuff up in order to continue your lies, smears & propaganda.
    10)It’s worse that we thought! (You should like that one, since it’s such a familiar mantra in the Church of CAGW)
    I had hoped this would have turned out differently, and gave you many opportunities to rationally discuss facts. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. It was probably too much to hope for from someone so obsessed that they create a whole blog solely to attack a single individual who differs from their views of climate science.”

    As their ride on the last natural climate warming has ended, they are becoming more & more irrational & over the top. It’s quite amusing to watch.

    • Me says:

      The best part is he is hiding his septic face gravatar! 😆

    • T.O.O. says:

      RealOldOne2,
      Unfortunately for you, I am not the same Lazuras who has risen again. Judging by the quality of the charges you lodge against Lazuras1, it appears that he must be a man of intelligence and insight. Apparently resurrection also brings enlightenment.

      However, this constant charge of mistaken identity means I should change my moniker — how do you guys like “TheOtherOne” or “T.O.O.”? I have to thank RealOldOne2 for the inspiration.

      Anyway, I enjoyed your rant though I do object to calling global warming theory a religion — it is the only theory describing the observations or recent climate that has the endorsement of all the scientific organizations. And, as you know, science is based on evidence whereas religion is based on faith. If anything, I would say that this site we are on now would better fit the description of a religion as so few posts ever offer any evidence to support to what they say.

      Have a nice day,
      signed T.O.O.(Formerly known as Lazuras)

      • RealOldOne2 says:

        “Unfortunately for you, I am not the same Lazuras”
        Hmmm, why do you mis-spell your name now? Above it was Lazarus. Now it’s Lazuras. Ashamed of your previous incompetence? You had me fooled b/c the level of ignorance & incompetence & trolling behavior is indistinguishable between you both!

        And no, my comment wasn’t a rant, just documented history of my exchange w/Lazarus on his website. It’s still there to see.

        “I do object to calling global warming theory a religion”
        It’s a religion b/c it’s based on a belief about CO2, and faith that CO2 causes just about everything, warmer temps, colder temps, less snow, more snow, more droughts, more floods, yada, yada, yada, not empirical evidence.

        You have a nice day T.O.O. in your resurrected self.

      • T.O.O. says:

        RealoldOne,
        You got it in one. Actually, the light was dark and I needed my glasses — probably also why.my comments end up on the wrong threads so often.

        In regards to CO2, everyone knows the climate is extremely complicated and interwoven. Rising temps due to CO2 have consequences that are only now being explored. But in some cases, as in the case of the Arctic, scientists have long predicted it to be the first casualty of global warming. You only have to look at Steve’s 1972 article above and notice the dramatic loss of ice volume over the past few decades to see the truth of that.

      • Me says:

        Bwaaaahahahaha!

      • Me says:

        Yowza, Lazararse, and now T.O.O. 😆 How many more? LMAO!

      • Chewer says:

        T.O.O, Those that pay attention see that the collapse of AGW, a simple “working hypothesis” is because their 41 different models continue to fail. All these additional excuses show them to be liars with large egos.
        The mass of ice just completed a deja vu from the period 1919-1938 and because there is no one on this planet in the AGW crowd to debate me in any quorum, means people eat what they’re , massive lies and anything but facts.
        If you believe AGW is scientific theory, you have been massively deceived!

      • T.O.O. says:

        Chewer,
        You only have to read the 1972 article above to know your assertion that global warming theory predictions are always wrong is simply crap.

      • Chewer says:

        Theory, as in scientific theory?
        Surely you jest. A working hypothesis with a group formed to continue its quest for a sustainable paycheck will never make it to the pinnacle of human knowledge and universal understanding called “Scientific Theory”. The money train is ending and that has produced a difficult situation that calls for pulling out all the stops, hence the wild flurry of unscientific postulations…

      • T.O.O. says:

        Chewer,
        Global warming theory is considered the only valid theory for describing the current climate by every national science academy in the world plus dozens of other science organizations many of whom have been in existence for more than a century.

        Are you claiming that they all feed off this mythical grant system and they have abandoned their mission to look at science objectively?

  13. gator69 says:

    “Anyway, I enjoyed your rant though I do object to calling global warming theory a religion — it is the only theory describing the observations or recent climate that has the endorsement of all the scientific organizations.”

    Appeals to authority is for religions, not science.

    “In regards to CO2, everyone knows the climate is extremely complicated and interwoven. Rising temps due to CO2 have consequences that are only now being explored. But in some cases, as in the case of the Arctic, scientists have long predicted it to be the first casualty of global warming. You only have to look at Steve’s 1972 article above and notice the dramatic loss of ice volume over the past few decades to see the truth of that.”

    As I stated before, this idiot thinks thst melting ice proves AGW. Nothing less scientific is even conceivable.

    What a lying moron.

    • Me says:

      Yep, Pretty Much! It must be a new kinda stupid for them! 😆

    • Me says:

      Hey gator, not to worry, Yowza, Lazarus, err T.O.O. will be back with a different name preaching the same no doubt.

    • T.O.O. says:

      Gator69,
      Science doesn’t rely on authority, but on evidence. For example, there is plenty of evidence to show that CO2 is a heat trapping gas and there is also plenty of evidence that the Arctic ice is thinning (loss of volume). Connecting the dots requires more evidence, but the scientists in 1972 seem to have understood that as well.

      BTW, I am impressed. You must use a long-life battery.

      • You don’t know anything about Arctic ice, other than the propaganda you hear from alarmists.

      • T.O.O. says:

        Steve,
        Are you the only one left who doesn’t see the dramatic loss of Arctic ice? That very same ice that scientists warned us about in 1972?

      • gator69 says:

        “Science doesn’t rely on authority, but on evidence.”

        Yes, science does, but alarmists do not. They rely on models, the ignorance of others (got a mirror?), and hyperbole.

      • T.O.O. says:

        Gator69,
        Am I to understand that you believe all the major scientific authorities are climate alarmists who rely on nothing more than hyperbole?

      • Me says:

        😆 Yowza, Lazararse septic face was just as stupid T.O.O. LMAO!

      • T.O.O. says:

        Me,
        You appear to be a bit of a lost soul.

      • Me says:

        To Me it doesn’t matter what you think, because you have no shame. 😆

      • You don’t know anything about Arctic ice dynamics. You are an irrational hysteric

      • T.O.O. says:

        Steve,
        What I know is that scientists have been warning us for decades that CO2 is a threat to the Arctic ice and, sure enough, the Arctic ice has lost 80% of its volume since 1979.

        Do you believe that this is simply a coincidence even though every science organization is telling you that it isn’t?

        I don’t think you completely grasp the meaning of irrational.

      • You don’t know anything about Arctic ice dynamics.

      • Me says:

        Lazararse septic face, All Me know is you lie and try to pawn yerself off here as 3 different people so far. And since being caught, you’re still here blathering on and on because you have no shame.

      • T.O.O. says:

        Steve,
        I agree — I am not an expert on ice dynamics, but then again, neither are you. However, luckily for us, the good folks at the NSDIC are. So what do you think their position is on CO2 and the recent loss of Arctic ice?

      • Me says:

        Bwaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!

      • Arctic ice is very dynamic. Very little of it lasts more than five years, because it all blows out into the North Atlantic. The volume of ice is primarily controlled by winter winds, and has nothing to do with CO2.

      • Brad says:

        T.O.O.

        Was the Arctic “ice free” within the last 100 years? If so, when? And during that time, did it result in a World Wide Catastrophe. Please focus.

      • T.O.O. says:

        Well Steve,
        The NSIDC disagrees with you regarding the influence of increased CO2 on Arctic ice.

        I guess we will find out how much of an ice dynamics expert you really are come summer time.

      • ROFL – NSIDC is funded by Hansen

      • T.O.O. says:

        Steve,
        Oh yeah, Hansen again. He certainly gets around. OK then, we can’t use NSIDC and you have stated that you believe PIOMAS is untrustworthy and, of course, GISS, HadCRU and NOAA are garbage.

        How about the US Navy? Are they OK?

        Well then Steve, the U.S. Navy disagrees with you regarding the influence of increased CO2 on Arctic ice.

      • Chewer says:

        Who says what?

      • T.O.O. says:

        Chewer,
        You just produced a graph with a downward trend of global sea ice since 1979. What point are you trying to make?

      • Chewer says:

        Well since history began in 1979, you’d think with all the alarmism being spread, the ice would be just about gone!!

      • T.O.O. says:

        Chewer,
        As the article that begins this blog stated, scientists were warning of Arctic ice disappearing since 1972. And, as it happens, they were right,

        Arctic ice has shrunk by 80% since 1979 and it has accelerated since 2007. Ice volume for 2013 is as low as has ever been measured and, if the trend continues, the Arctic Ocean will have vast new areas open to summer solar radiation to absorb. This will contribute trillions upon trillions of extra watt energy into the global energy system.

      • Chewer says:

        Apparently you haven’t caught the could, might, should has the potential in your readings…

      • T.O.O. says:

        Chewer,
        I don’t see how this graph connects to Arctic ice.

      • ROFLMAO – in 1974 they wanted to melt the Arctic to stop an ice age.

      • Chewer says:

        MEI shows us quite nicely what the 1982/83 and 1997/98 massive El Nino events delivered.
        Science has no method of measuring EMF and its interactions with anything in a 1 meter of cubed space, much less the matter we call earth.
        The troposphere is as dynamic as the three (or more) flowing areas we call the van Allen belts, not do we see what happens when the magnetosphere depresses and relaxes by several degrees.
        Why do the progressive mind and the conservative mind agree upon all the laws of physics (scientific theories, but do not jive with a working hypothesis called AGW?
        If you have any reasonable explanation for this phenomenon, please pass it on:)

      • T.O.O. says:

        Steve,
        It is my understanding that climate science has progressed since the 1970’s. There were conflicting theories in the 70’s but the overwhelming consensus, even in the 1970’s, was in the “warming” camp. And since then there has been virtually no dissension amongst scientists as to validity of the present global warming theory. In fact, it appears that the only dissension to the theory occurs on non-scientific platforms such as this.

      • Chewer says:

        The Indian dipole, PDO, NAO, AMOC, AO, Antarctic stream, and MEI are measurements we can see & touch and they provide spectacular indicators, since the majority of the planet is water!
        All of the land temperatures are meaningless in comparison to the true driver, our oceans!
        You know, the place where the extra heat is hiding…

      • T.O.O. says:

        Chewer,
        I agree with you, oceans do hold the greatest heat. And if the Arctic starts to melt quickly and extensively this summer, then we will be absorbing a lot more of it.

      • T.O.O. says:

        Steve,
        This proves what? Are you saying that a prediction is worthless if they don’t get the date exactly right?

      • What I am saying is that the Arctic is incredibly cold and will not be ice-free at any point in the foreseeable future, and people who say it will be are completely full of shit.

      • T.O.O. says:

        Well Steve,
        Come summer time, we shall see what we shall see.

      • Chewer says:

        If we see a dual planetary rift that lasts 40 days, we might see the planets temperature plummet in days & weeks, not years and decades.
        If the arctic ocean temperature is 11 degrees F at a depth of 68 meters, May, June, July & August will not provide anywhere close to what is needed for a repeat of any year you’ve been alive, unless you were around in 1929…

      • There are hundreds of miles of 3+ metre thick ice north of Canada. How could anybody be daft enough to believe that is going to melt?

      • Chewer says:

        Why believe when you can hope:)
        For the worst, that is!

  14. gator69 says:

    “Gator69,
    Am I to understand that you believe all the major scientific authorities are climate alarmists who rely on nothing more than hyperbole?”

    Yes. Show me evidence.

  15. gator69 says:

    What is it with alarmists being such bald faced liars? Just like Glieck, we have the village idiot formerly known as Laz who lied and said he had no connection to the “other” Laz. I knew I had seen this scumbag refer to his blog of Insane Goddard obsession on more than one occasion. It took me all of 5 seconds to find this…

    “OldOne says:
    February 11, 2012 at 5:35 pm
    Well, I just visited Lazarus’s website & posted the following:
    While you are correct that the trend of SL increased over the entire Envisat record, that is not what Goddard claimed, so you are making a moot point.

    His 1st claim was that SL has been declining for several years. Now, plot a trend line for the last 6 years(beginning of 2006). Trend is negative. Since 2007? Negative. Since 2008? Negative. Four, five & six years certainly meet the criteria of “several”, so Goddard was correct in his statement.

    Goddard’s second claim was that SL IS lower NOW than it was in 2003. The only 2003 data point was 0.488. The date of the SPPI paper is 4 Jan 2012. The most recent data point prior to that was the last data point of 2011 which was 0.484. That IS lower that the only 2003 data in the record in question, so Goddard was correct in his statement.

    You state:”I cannot not figure out anyway a mind, even Goddard’s, can come to this conclusion” Well, it’s obvious that you didn’t even try. An objective person would have contacted Goddard to ask for clarification.

    I would suggest that you be honest & rescind your statement that Goddard’s first statement was “a straightforward lie.

    You make the same mistake in trying to prove Goddard wrong in his second claim, you change his claim. Goddard did not claim that the average sea level in 2011 was lower than 2003. He said SL IS lower NOW than it was in 2003. Look in the dictionary; the definition of NOW is:”At the present time or moment” According to my arithmetic 0.484 IS lower than 0.488. So I would also suggest that you correct your final paragraph stating that “Goddard wasn’t even correct about sea level being lower than the end of 2003/start of 2004.”
    Expecting that you are interested in facts, I expect you to post my comment, apologize to Goddard & correct your errors.
    Thanks, in the interest of science, which is based on facts.

    It said that it was published. If so, I wonder how long it lasts. Alarmists don’t readily admit to errors. And they really don’t like being shown wrong.
    Tamino at OpenMind(oxymoron) has refused to post similar factual posts of mine on his ‘Oh Pleeze’ post where in a similar straightforward manner I showed that Tamino hadn’t even bothered to examine the claims that Goodridge made, he just dismissed them. And Tamino(Grant Foster) is a published climate scientist. How revealing that they censor critical comments & can’t stand to be corrected w/facts & data. No wonder they created RC as a PR site so they could “win the PR battle”.

    Lazarus says:
    February 12, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    I have replied to your comment;
    http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/2012/02/sea-level-has-been-declining-for.html

    A liar is a liar and can never be trusted.

    Post again liar.

    • RealOldOne2 says:

      Yep, that’s me when I was using my blogger username. I’m now using the same name as I use on YouTube. These guys are insane & just project their own faults on those they disagree with.

      My entire exchange w/Lazarus is still there. You can see by reading it, I am the one being rational & logical, while Lazarus used logical fallacies, dodges & wouldn’t address the points that I made. He also denied the facts I pointed out & totally refused to accept reality, solely because it went against his CAGW doomsday cult religion.

      If you want to see another example of a lying climate crazy, check out my YT channel page comments, where I exposed the real name (Gilman Reno Ouellette, Jr.) of an idiot with the handle StAverti. He claimed to be a PhD climate scientist & professor. He refused to admit to the reality that the global climate cooled from 1940-1970, over 1500 times. I compiled a list of 140 blatantly false statements he made, and he refused to admit that a single one of them was wrong, so I knew he was a pretender. I told him that I knew his real name from his own comments & asked him if he really wanted me to reveal it. After he begged me over & over to reveal it, I did. He was merely a 20-something grad student at WKU. After I revealed his name he then began to impersonate Dr. Lee Floria from Ball State U. He gave up on that lie when I asked him if I should email Dr. Floria to see if he minded if a grad student was impersonating him. Ouellette was a total liar & fraud, just as Lazarus is!

      • gator69 says:

        Gavin Cawley used to come here and fear longer for funding under the name Dikran Marsupial, until I outed him over a year ago. Apparently UNethical behavior is not an issue when you lie about your identity.

      • gator69 says:

        Make that fear ‘monger’.

        Dime oboe! 😉

      • RealOldOne2 says:

        Ah, Dikran Marsupial, that infamous Septical Science contributor! Gavin Cawley of the UEA huh? Good job. They unashamedly lie with impunity.

    • T.O.O. says:

      Gator69,
      I am sure that in your own mind that you are making sense, but for the life of me, I don’t see the connection to your earlier claim that scientific organizations are climate alarmists who do not follow evidence. Unless, of course, you are claiming that Gleick and this other Lazarus are themselves scientific organizations. Is that the point you are trying to make?

      • Brad says:

        TOO, was the arctic “ice free” in the last 100 years? If so when, and, if so, was it a worldwide catastrophe.

      • T.O.O. says:

        Brad,
        Apparently this question is important to you. Please define what you mean by “ice free”. If you are thinking that ice free means the size of Russia, then the answer is yes, But if you think ice free means the size of Rhode Island, then the answer is no. As well, I believe there will be new ice forming in the Arctic from late September to late March every year until way past my years on Earth.

        Are we clear?

      • Brad says:

        I’m asking now what your definition of Ice Free means and was it reached in the past via your definition of Ice Free and was it a catastrophe? What is your definition of Ice Free that would create a worldwide catastrophe? What exactly is Ice Free? You imply either the size of Russia or the size of Rhode Island.

  16. gator69 says:

    “Gator69,
    I am sure that in your own mind that you are making sense, but for the life of me, I don’t see the connection to your earlier claim that scientific organizations are climate alarmists who do not follow evidence. Unless, of course, you are claiming that Gleick and this other Lazarus are themselves scientific organizations. Is that the point you are trying to make?”

    What evidence do you have that disproves natural variability aside from models and hyperbole?

    It is a simple question if you are not a serial liar.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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