Arctic Has Gained Hundreds Of Miles Of Ice The Last Three Years

ScreenHunter_2977 Sep. 09 07.43

Red shows the September 2012 minimum extent. Green shows the current extent, which is likely the minimum for 2015. The Arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice over the past three years, much of which is thick, multi-year ice.

Nobel Prize winning climate experts and journalists tell us that the Arctic is ice-free, because they are propagandists pushing an agenda, not actual scientists or journalists.

ScreenHunter_9954 Jul. 20 08.27

The End of the Arctic? Ocean Could be Ice Free by 2015 – The Daily Beast


Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

ScreenHunter_4681 Nov. 16 22.25

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013′

screenhunter_69-jun-11-21-44 (2)

Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013 | Sierra Club Canada

ScreenHunter_4675 Nov. 16 19.01ScreenHunter_4674 Nov. 16 18.59

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

The Argus-Press – Jun 24, 2008

ScreenHunter_377 May. 12 13.16

The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search


About stevengoddard

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

700 Responses to Arctic Has Gained Hundreds Of Miles Of Ice The Last Three Years

  1. Ron Clutz says:

    Arctic ice extent is now stabilizing at an average of 4.6M km2 for the first week of Sept. (MASIE). Wadhams predicted a minimum this year of 1M km2.

    • Hal Slusher says:

      How can you have any kind of real tread with only 36 years of data plus for a few years the satellite sensors were going bad? Satellite was replaced recently so right now we really don’t have anything remotely long term.

    • Major Johnson says:

      That cannot be right. The people I listen to say otherwise, and they’re smart enough to measure global temperatures down to the thousandth of a degree and global sea levels to the micrometer, so I think they know what they’re talking about.

      • Paul says:

        You should be happy!! The world ISN’T coming to an end!!!

      • Ron Clutz says:

        Well, that’ll be the day, when ice says goodbye
        Yes, that’ll be the day, when polar bears cry
        You say that we caused it, you know it’s a lie
        ‘Cause that’ll be the day the warming dies.

        (Apology to Buddy Holly)

      • Anybody thinking they can measure global temperature to a thousandth of a degree is clearly insane.

      • mawendt says:

        Ummm… define ‘Global Temperature’. Its a subjective and made up number, and anyone who measures it to 1/1000 of a degree is lying or beyond egotistical. Same with global sea levels to a micrometer.

        The earth shifts and parts raise and fall. Its called geology. Temperature changes. Its called seasons. and there are periods it has been both very much colder and very much warmer. And yet, somehow the smart people think the last 100, or 500, or 5000 years establishes a baseline for 4.5million years of weather.

        Nope. They don’t know what they’re talking about. They are trying to maintain their place and income.

      • Donald Olson says:

        I think that was sarcasm but if not it demonstrates the curse of the hand held calculator. My slide rule did pretty good when I taking Chemical Engineering in the 60’s.

    • Jim in Va. says:

      Al Gore should have to give back his Nobel Prize for his scam. He doesn’t know anything scientific and is only repeating someone else’s propaganda

  2. emsnews says:

    Every time they predict something and it doesn’t happen, we should have a public spanking on You Tube to teach them to not make lousy predictions. Saying, ‘I don’t know what will happen next’ should be the default comment, not some wild, unsubstantiated ‘prediction’ that is nearly 100% wrong.

    Tossing anyone doing this down a dry well works wonders, too. This is what mobs did to people who made lousy predictions in ancient times.

  3. Fred762 says:

    GW or whatever is an elitist liberal scam designed to help bring down our economy to enable the elite to easily merge the USA into the NWO gvt they plan

  4. 2ndprotectsall says:

    Darn that pesky global normal!

  5. Joe E in the IE says:

    Care to comment, former vice president and (must . . . not . . . smirk) climate activist Al Gore? Doesn’t the pla-YAN-et have a fa-HEE-ver?

    Yes, I see and no, you can’t f✮✮✮ me or the horse I rode in on. I don’t even own a horse.

  6. Global cooling is the real danger to mankind. This is one of the few articles posted. But hardly anything has been written (except in the ’70’s) about this. A lot more energy will be used to keep warm.

  7. Leslie Green says:

    Gore and his crony buddies will have to eat their predictions. Carbon taxes because of global warming is a con job folks… they will make millions (billions?) if they are able to push through their nefarious agenda… don’t be fooled… theses guys are crooks, con artists and just plain evil, IMHO.

    • Andy DC says:

      Trading carbon futures would simply be a filching operation for insiders and floor traders, as well as the very wealthy, who conspire to manipulate the price.

    • Regrettably, Gore and his crony buddies have already made millions and millions of dollars off the incredible stupidity of politicians and left wing citizens. You’re right about them being absolutely evil; they assuredly are.

  8. M. Roberts says:

    Kinda thought that once a scientific theory is made fact and fails(actually extensively tested in the proposed theory stage) in a prediction/result not only once but several times regardless of tweeking, that it would be thrown out and new one proposed to be tested. Apparently an ideological scientific “fact” is treated similarly to a religious act of faith.

    • 7th Day says:

      Amen Brother!

    • Robin T says:

      You’re correct, M. Roberts. However, the people proposing the theory, and testing it aren’t scientists. They’re opportunists, and this is how they’re making their millions and/or billions. I wish more people would be educated in the Scientific Method, but the liberal agenda won’t allow for that. Too much knowledge makes it difficult to lead people around by their noses.

    • darrylb says:

      Increased warming due to increased CO2 concentrations should never have made it to the point of being a theory.
      It was only a hypothesis. Each model is a separate hypothesis, and each as shown it self to be inaccurate.
      Therefore a theory, which should be considered a working model should never have been considered to have been formed.
      The concept that the ‘science is settled’ is antithetical to the most basic constructs of science. Something born out of ego and emotion and not fact

    • Chris from CA says:

      Lets just say for a minute that the earth really is in a warming trend. The scientists tell us that we have been in 5, and that we are in one now. Seems to me it is pretty conceited to think that we have the power to change the earths climate. Isn’t the more likely scenario that the climate is simply doing what it has always done? That is, change.

  9. dave gray says:

    One thing is certain, al gore and assoc, are emitting more than their share of gas and it is all about gaining money and control. That is why Obama is told to be all for it.

  10. Way West says:

    Yeah, these idiots are classic “THE SKY IS FALLING!” morons. Computer based “predictions” are fool hardy and infantile. Stupid moron PHD f-tards. No concept that they cannot begin to fathom the power and grace of GOD better known to us as MOTHER NATURE. Shut these morons down NOW. Geez they couldn’t forecast their own IQ. Fakes, morons and idiots. Ask anyone on the sidewalk for their predictions and you will have an equal chance of being correct versus these pea-brains.

  11. dieter says:

    Dem Voters to be Brain Free by 2016.

  12. Murr mike says:

    Facts and figures don’t matter to left wing nuts. They are propped up by a corrupt media and will continue to press forward to the goal of controlling every move we make and taxing the snot out of business, natural energy and consumers to finance their take over.

    The train has left the station, it’s not coming back. There will be no chance of stopping this insanity and the GW enthusiasts will continue to rob money from everyone to pay off the scientists that wouldn’t have a job if it weren’t for this made up crisis.

    • Koop in VA says:

      It’s interesting that you would post such a comment on an article that is basically pure propaganda. Steven says that Arctic minimum is likely reached. I bet you and Steven that the minimum has not already taken place. We’ll see who is right in a couple of weeks but when he is shown to be wrong there won’t be any correction. But that is really a minor point because whether the minimum happens on Sept 7, 12, 18, etc. is not of much importance.

      The important thing is to note how easily the author misleads you all. He starts off with a headline that while true gives the ignorant readers a misreading of the situation. Yes, arctic sea ice extent has increased since the historically abnormal year of 2012. But in any meaningful way is arctic sea ice extent increasing? No. It continues to fall decade after decade.

      Well, how about arctic sea ice volume? Well, is that actually increasing? Well, not if you measure it on a decade by decade basis. It is clearly decreasing in volume. So what you get in the “skeptic” community you see that people ignore the record lows of ice (or the record highs of global temps) and then when ice slightly reverts to mean or temps revert to mean, you get these types of idiotic articles.

      Then to top it off the author thinks it’s important to provide links to minority views in the scientific community. Yes, some misguided scientists thought it was good to extrapolate ice loss in a small number of years and project forward. They got pretty crappy, outlier projections. But what did the bulk of climate scientists say about the predictions of complete arctic ice loss? Silence? Crickets? Does anybody here even care what the consensus is on when the arctic will be ice free?

      Here’s an analogy for you. Let’s say there was a handful of baseball experts that said last year that they thought the Cubs were going to turn it around and win the World Series last year. Obviously they were wrong. Would you then use the argument that baseball experts don’t know what they are talking about when a few got the Cubs prediction wrong last season but meanwhile virtually all other baseball experts said that the Cubs were a year or two away from competing? What does it mean when your argument is so weak that you continually highlight bad predictions of people that are on the fringe of the prediction spectrum?

      Sorry for any typos or grammar errors, no time to proof read.

      • Temperatures are below freezing across the Arctic, and NSIDC is flatlined

        • Rhett Rothberg says:

          This doesn’t really address the points he is making. Do you have anything further?

        • Koop in VA says:

          But temps aren’t below freezing across the area that comprises arctic sea ice extent. Of the 14 regions that the folks at cryosphere track, 13 of them all have average daily temperatures above 32 degrees. On top of that according to climate reanalyzer the Arctic is overall 1 degree centigrade warmer than the historic average. On top of that the water temperature throughout the 13 regions I previously mentioned are all well above normal. And on top of that the last 5 arctic sea ice minimums occurred on September 9, 13, 16, 17 and 19 according to NSIDC.

          On top of that can you let your readers know if it is common at this time of year for NSIDC to flat line and then go back down? We are in the transition period between melt and ice accumulation and the day to day gain/loss figure can switch.

          Anyway, it’s a fairly minor point, but, no, it is not likely that we have reached a minimum and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is even though I’m just a layman on this topic.

        • It doesn’t make any difference if the ice blows around a little bit. There will be a huge increase in MYI next week.

      • CypressSteve says:

        Koop, you seem like a well-meaning sort, but your analogy is flawed unless the predictions (regardless of whether it’s climate or Cubs) are based on more than feelings and assumptions. To make any kind of meaningful forecast, it must be backed up by hard, observable data. The hypothesis must be tested against observations over time. Unfortunately, I am left unconvinced that the observable “real world” is matching up with the assumptions being made about the data. Just a case in point: If, over time, the ice volume continuously reverts to mean (instead of just for a single year), would you not concede that perhaps… just PERHAPS… the hypothesis (not the data) needs to be revised? At what point are you willing to even pull back from a “well-established theory” and concede that we are really only talking about a hypothesis? And one that is not fully matching up with the observable data? To fair-minded scientists, it’s more than OK to admit that possibility that we may have it wrong. Doing so is the only way to take corrective actions.

        • Koop in VA says:

          Thanks for the compliment and while you are right that scientific predictions should be based on data driven models where you are perhaps missing the boat is that arctic sea ice isn’t reverting to mean time after time. This article and others in the skeptic community tend to be written when the extent or volume bounce off a new low. But the trend line is clear that both extent and volume are moving lower at, what, 3 percent per decade? (Don’t take that 3 percent as gospel, just off the top of my head after reading stuff on PIOMAS and sea ice extent by NSIDC) In my comment I think I phrased it as “slightly revert to mean” which is a layman’s attempt to say that we hit a new low on extent or volume, and then we bounce slightly upward but then “quickly” go to a new low.

          Anyway, arctic sea ice is melting as predicted. This year will likely be the warmest ever in recorded history as (generally) predicted and this is all happening in a time period where the sun is at historic minimums in recorded history. So, yes, we should all examine our biases, examine the data, try our very best to leave our political leanings out of our analysis and then see where this leads us.

          But I think the place to really have this debate is not really on a blog but in scientific papers. I would personally love if we discovered why the scientific community’s consensus was wrong and that the effects won’t be near as dire as predicted. But the people doing that will be other scientists and not people on the internet.

          See you around.

      • I recall Algore made a movie based on those ” bad predictions of people that are on the fringe of the prediction spectrum”. I recall he won some prestigious awards for it.

      • Koop… it would be great if you could apply this kind of thinking .. skepticism.. this kind of criticism to the Mainstream Gov’t Funded Science Pushing Climate Change…

        Goddard did say “Likely the Minimum” .. and has posted all kinds of Dire Predictions by Alarmists which have NOT COME TRUE… why not apply your critical thinking to all these failed predictions..??

        Regardless.. 2015 Arctic Gains Ice.. that’s the Headline, that’s the trust of the argument here… and the hundreds of miles of ice gained won’t go way @32 Degrees over the next week..

        • Koop in VA says:

          Goddard did say “likely the minimum” but if it is likely and you all believe him, let’s just put a bet on it because it is likely that you will win, right? He gave 2 reasons for his prediction and I gave multiple. Which did you judge to be the stronger of the arguments and in two weeks time who do you think will be proven correct?

          Anyway, I’ll admit that I suffer from (and I think most people here suffer from) confirmation bias and so most of the media I see tends to pro-AGW. But in the last decade I have tried to branch out in my reading and so I read “both” sides more than probably the average person. And articles like this are frustrating to deal with. I can specifically point out why the article is poorly reasoned out but it doesn’t sink in. I mean will one skeptic here say, you know what, it is pretty crappy when fellow skeptics resort to propaganda to make a point and generate clicks? I mean, for goodness sake, look at the ice extent records in the last 30 years. There is a clear trend and because we are slightly higher now than an historically low year (2012) people here are saying that the arctic ice isn’t melting.

          And you are correct that the amount of melt left in this season is likely not very big and will not cause us to go below 2012 but it will still be the 3rd or 4th lowest ice extent in recorded history (which isn’t very long I’ll grant you). And due to the way the article was written people think that ice extent is growing. Like I said, it’s frustrating.

      • Koop.. Mulit-Year Ice has built up… sure, 2012 was a “low” but the Consensus Science continually benchmarks from a know “High” year!!.. 77-81…

        Meanwhile Goddard has put forth evidence that 42 years ago in 1972 the Arctic Ice was about the same extent..

        • Koop in VA says:

          Ok, let’s talk about 1972 vs 2013. I don’t know too many better sources of data on arctic sea ice than NSIDC so I went there and searched data on historical sea ice (well, I actually searched this several hours ago and found it and posted here on this site but it is germane to your point and so I hope you don’t mind the link again)

          So it appears to me that in 1972 the arctic sea ice extent was somewhere in the ballpark of 1 standard deviation above the 1968 to 1996 mean. Whereas in the last few years it is actually around 2 standard deviations below the 1968 to 1996 mean.

          Now, I’m not in the field and maybe I’m missing something. Maybe I’m mixing it up because it is a graph of anomalies based on a 28 year data set to derive a mean. But it seems pretty clear to me that 2013, 2014 and 2015 are all well below 1972. Or perhaps I’m missing something and you can point out to me why I’m not interpreting the graph correctly?

      • Richard says:

        I really wish the world were warming, but unfortunately, on top of the Arctic ice increase, you have the Antarctic ice at an all time high and a “pause” in warming of almost 19 years along with record low temps around the world last winter and plenty of snow (which was not supposed to be there). Sorry buddy, you lose. The evidence does not fit the theory how ever you spin it.

        • Koop in VA says:

          If you care at all about the truth you’ll look at the actual data and retract your claims.

          But to be clear in the last couple of decades we have lost about a million square kilometers worth of arctic sea ice for this time of year. So no, arctic sea ice is decreasing not increasing. And, no, Antarctic sea ice extent is not at an all time high. A couple of weeks ago it was actually below average for this time of year and now it basically at its average.

          Finally, while I am really confident on the sea ice extent answers above, I’m a little less confident on the global temperatures last winter but I’m pretty sure that it was at or near a record high. Yes, the eastern portion of the US experienced record cold but global temps are, well, global and they were, I believe, at or nearly at record levels.

          The data is out there. Go see it for yourself and consider whether you want to be like one of those idiot liberals who hear facts and won’t change their mind or if you will let data sway your opinion.

  13. KTM says:

    Every prediction has been wrong. Every current IPCC model is wrong. Every year they get more wrong. Science is the business of testing hypotheses, and the Global Warming hypothesis has failed and continues to fail daily.

    • Koop in VA says:

      Let’s see here’s two big predictions. The earth will get warmer and the arctic sea ice will decrease. Both of those are what could be called the cornerstone of predictions and guess what, those predictions are both accurate. But you’ll probable not even acknowledge that your “every prediction has been wrong” quote is just horribly off base.

      In the next year or two there may be a new yearly temperature record that is actually outside the margin of error of our measuring devices and this will no doubt be downplayed here at this site. It’s frankly just sad.

      Anyway, why don’t you try doing a quick search and see if you can see what the actual consensus is by experts of when the arctic will be ice free. Perhaps then you will realize that constantly pointing out when a small minority of scientists make a bad projection isn’t really good scientific analysis. Sure it might be “good” politics or “good” propaganda but it moves us away from what is real, right?

      And isn’t that what all of us here really want? Whether we accept or deny AGW we all want to have our views align with reality so why so much misrepresentation in articles and so much ignorance in the comments section?

      • lectrikdog says:

        “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

        Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

        There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
        – Michael Crichton

        • Koop in VA says:

          I’ll agree with you but I think the term consensus is misused by the skeptic community. If you send an MRI to 10 oncologists and 9 say that that there is start of a tumor and 1 says that there isn’t you can say that the consensus of experts is that there is a tumor. But the reality is that that 1 oncologist could be correct. In that sense, consensus is pretty worthless. But if you were a patient do you go with the 9 or do you go with the 1 and why?

          In the current situation, it is like many people here are saying to go with the 1 because of their political disposition. And their political disposition has nothing to do with whether you actually have a tumor or the world is actually slowly heating up due to us pumping more and more CO2 and methane in the atmosphere and then feedback loops kicking in.

          Since I’m a registered Republican (although I admit I don’t vote that way anymore) I see so many of my ex-brethren willing to bet the entire conservative philosophy on the scientists getting this one wrong. And I just think it doesn’t make any sense at all. If you truly believe that the science is wrong let’s devote a lot of resources to re-examining all the scientific papers on this subject. Let’s give large bonuses to scientists that over turn the consensus and prove that the warmer won’t be as great as previously predicted. But if all that extra research and re-validation show what scientists are currently saying, then let’s act. As a “conservative” I want a more free market approach and I don’t see why government needs to be expanded unnecessarily but just to bet the future of “our” political philosophy on scientists getting it wrong is a fools bet.

        • Rhett Rothberg says:

          Right…but, if that person is indeed right, then there will be consensus. You don’t just claim you are right without the verification. Who does the verification? Other scientists who show repeatable results and write their own papers on the same. That is how the consensus is come to. I think the Crichton quote is not getting at the right issue.

        • rah says:

          “Peer Review” has replaced experimental or observational confirmation in “climate science” and that is one of the big problems with it all. Plenty of historical examples of great scientists who’s work was not accepted by “the consensus” at the time but is now established theory. Continental Drift leading to Plate tectonics being one of many such examples of such theories.

      • Gary says:

        what is this consensus crap – science is not about consensus

        • Koop in VA says:

          If the majority of scientists that are discussing something in their field of expertise and they say X, a minority say Y, and an extreme minority say Z, who would you bet on being right and why? Yes, we are all aware of the history of scientists overturning the scientific paradigms of their time and where the consensus was wrong.

          But it’s a fool’s bet to take any particular field of scientific inquiry and bet against the consensus. Yes, you’ll occasionally be correct but the vast majority of time you’ll be wrong.

          Anyway, most climate experts say that if you dig up fossil fuels and burn them so that they turn into gasses and enter our atmosphere that over the course of centuries the earth will heat up.

          “Skeptics” seem to say that we can burn as much fossil fuels as we want and change the composition of our atmosphere and over the course of centuries there will be no impact on the average global temperature. Some people are predisposed to think one over the other. I just have to put my trust in scientists since it is, after all, not a question of politics but of physics, chemistry, etc.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Skeptics” seem to say that we can burn as much fossil fuels as we want and change the composition of our atmosphere and over the course of centuries there will be no impact on the average global temperature”

          That is exactly true.. Well done .. you are learning. !

          The last 36 years of satellite data have proven that to be the case.

          There is absolutely no CO2 warming signature in the whole 36 years of satellite data.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And burning those fossil fuels will be highly beneficial to the world, because it will raise the atmospheric CO2 level for the chemical reaction called photosynthesis, which provides ALL food on the planet.

      • rah says:

        The CO2 has risen while temperature has remained static and there is no hot spot detectable in the lower troposphere. Hypothesis falsified PERIOD!
        No other data needed.

      • Koop… what we’ve learned on here is that the 30’s were hotter.. and the baseline used for Glaciers/Arctic Ice (1979) is a know cold period..

        So, both your 2 big assumptions are incorrect… at least in regards to CO2..

        Everyone here knows the Planet has been warming and Ice has been receding since 10,000 BC, forces rarely discussed by Mainstream $$ Gov’t Scientists.. Goddard has been pointing out failed predictions by high profile Scientists like Mann, Gavin, and Hansen.. that’s the point.. the nutcases are the ones leading the charge, pushing the Agenda.

        • Koop in VA says:

          I probably don’t read enough skeptical science so perhaps I missed it, so in a nutshell can you explain the claim that the 1930’s were hotter than today.

          And yes, high profile failed predictions should be understood and learned from. And I understand the aversion to consensus but what is the measuring stick you go by? Do you think that pointing out where politicians or activists make bad predictions helps get us closer to determining the amount of warming that will occur due to a change in the composition of the atmosphere? I would guess you would say “no”. So I think we would likely be in agreement that we should focus more on the predictions of scientists. Do you think it is more valid/important when a fringe prediction is proven wrong or when the consensus prediction is proven wrong?

          I think we would probably both agree that it is more important when a consensus prediction is wrong and not when a few scientists here or there get their model wrong. With all that said, without knowing what specific predictions Mann, Gavin, and Hansen made and whether their predictions were within or outside the scientific consensus it is tough for me to gauge how much import to assign to your point.

      • David says:

        Let’s take the emotionally charged Global Warming and call it what it is: Climate Change. It’s been around since earth was formed. The data accumulation has been brief in comparison to the previous manifestation and duration of former Ice Ages by naturally occurring cycles of every few million years. What’s evident is that mankind’s activity have accelerated this natural cycle because of the industrial revolution these past 150 years. All the carbon released annually by consumption of fossil fuels is greater then all the annual volcanic activity. I think we should make some silly assumptions and face some facts concerning fossil fuel consumption; first, let’s say that Al Gore fabricated his work for personal gain, thereby it is questionable; Let’s also say that climate scientists were hand selected with a pre-determined outcome plan, by offers of grant and government support programs. Therefore, it must be a hoax. Okay, now consider the present day air quality in Bejing or the most highly populated cities in Asia or South America. For North America, LA was the most notable example of poor air quality or smog in the 1960’s. Smog devices alleviate the harmful effects of smog, now more of an unsightly haze. Air quality will continue to worsen as the world population continue to increase. This alone will/has contributed to respiratory health problems. Not good for future generations. Water quality has also been negatively effected by industrialization. Of recent years, the breeching of coal tailings ponds have polluted drinking water supplies; fracking has polluted aquifer potability. Bottom line is that if we don’t move to renewables our children and future generations will have a lower quality of life then all of us have taken for granted.

        • Richard says:

          Coal is one of the greatest gifts that God gave to mankind. It is abundant, cheap, efficient and can be burned cleanly and could even be made to burn cleaner if a fraction of the money spent on the fantasy of Global Warming were spent on clean coal research. If you really care about your children advocate for coal and not for Global Warming expenditures. The entire world is burning coal and the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is a fraction of 1 percent and only a fraction of that is man made and CO2 is innocuous and necessary for life. You exhale it and drink it in your Cokes and plants just love the stuff. Step back from the ledge and see the big picture. You might be surprised what you’re missing.

      • AndyG55 says:

        ” The earth will get warmer and the arctic sea ice will decrease.”

        We had a thing called a LIA.. Thankfully it warmed up..

        There has been no warming this century, or longer.

        Arctic sea ice decline has stalled at a level that is still anomalously high compared to the rest of the Holocene.

        The 1997 – 2001 ElNino set added 0.26C to that atmospheric temperature. Nobody pretends it was a CO2 forced event.. because it wasn’t.
        Since the slight warming before the ElNino has been basically cancelled by the cooling since, there is ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE in the whole of the 36 years of the satellite temperature record.

        • Koop in VA says:

          I’m puzzled a little. Why do you think arctic sea ice loss has stalled and, hypothetically, how much longer does it have to keep on melting for you to re-think that maybe it is actually melting?

          I look at the best measurements we have over the last 70 years or so and it seems pretty clear that there is a definite loss of extent and volume, particularly over the last 3 decades.

        • Richard says:

          There are plenty of reasons Arctic ice may melt that have nothing to do with GW. The Arctic is in a highly active volcanic region. Are any other reasons being considered besides GW? The answer is no, because the Left wants GW to be the reason, but it doesn’t make sense to blame the Arctic melt on GW while Antarctic ice is growing. How can GW be “global” if ice is growing in some regions and retreating in others sorta like its always done since the beginning of time.

      • KTM says:

        How about the fact that according to our more accurate satellite measurements, current temperatures are now outside the 5-95% confidence interval of the worldwide consensus prediction of what future temperatures would be from the 1990 IPCC FAR?

        That means the hypothesis that formed that worldwide consensus prediction has been falsified, in real science anyway. In fantasy pseudo-science, anything goes.

        How about the fact that the consensus from US climate experts in 1965 warned Nixon that by the year 2000 temperatures might rise by 7 degrees, making sea levels rise by 10 feet, putting NYC and DC underwater? Sweep it under the rug, I guess.

        How about the fact that every one of the most recent IPCC models failed to predict the haitus in temperatures? When every model is wrong and every one of them is based on CO2 as the global control knob for temperatures, that’s a pretty good indication that the underlying hypothesis is wrong.

        You say that you haven’t perused any of the “skeptic” literature. I didn’t cite any skeptic literature, I cited consensus documents. The 1990 IPCC FAR was consensus science. The 1965 report “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment” was consensus science. The IPCC models are the modern mainstream of climate science. They are are badly wrong. Which consensus is right? Whether you go back 50 years, 25 years, or 25 days, there are plenty of glaring flaws and outright failures in the consensus literature. The most blind are those who refuse to see.

  14. Barry Wendell Jackson, Esq. says:

    How is this possible? After all, with peak oil long past we know we have already run out of oil, and horse-drawn carriages are back. Right? We really must pay attention to those experts who predict the ends of things. Right? Experts are never wrong! Right? Those skeptics are always wrong, and should be punished for misleading the public. Right? Like those Experts in the 70s who predicted a new ice age. Right?

  15. I Goh Pauti says:

    There you have it President Ice Hole.

  16. MorrisMinor says:

    Can it be stopped? Yes. But you’d have to kill all the alarmists first.

  17. rob bennett says:

    This can’t be true. Why just the other day, there was a little boy up there crying wolf. You know the half black dude, the cop hater, liar and muslim? That guy?

    • Wolvesliivesmatter says:

      How dare u insult the wolves…. #wolveslivesmatter…. Next thing u know, you’ll be attacking the 3 little pigs!

  18. Kevin says:

    These global climate warming change fanatics will double down on their hysteria. That is their modus operandi. In the face of contradictory evidence and reporting, double down, get more hysterical, push harder.

    • SerfCityHereWeCome says:

      Naturally. Look at the horrifying alternative they face– getting jobs.

    • Koop in VA says:

      Can I ask you a series of simple questions on arctic sea ice?

      Was there more or less ice in the 1990’s than in the 1980’s? Was there more or less in 00’s than in the 90’s? Was there more or less in the 10’s than in the 00’s?

      Then please expound a bit further on what people do in the face of contradictory evidence and how they get more hysterical and push harder.

      Thanks in advance!

      • Not Chicken Little says:

        There’s a lot less now than there was 12,000 years ago, when it was a mile thick over North America and it all started melting and the sea levels rose over 300 feet…and Man and CO2 had NOTHING to do with it!

        The idea that whatever warming is taking place is caused by Man and CO2 is nothing but a scam.

      • Abrasax says:

        Was there more or less Ice in 1900 than 2000? How about 1500 than 1900? How about 400BC than 1500 AD? How about 20000 years ago compared to the Younger Dryas? See how that works? Step right up. Pick a fractal any fractal. Then please expound a bit further on what you do when you cannot rely on the tactics of Sophistry….

        Thanks in advance!

        • Koop in VA says:

          I hear you but let’s be honest that the context of the debate in this thread is AGW. It’s scientifically interesting how much the arctic sea ice extent has changed over the course of any given time period but we discuss it in relation to predictions made by climate scientists. In this context most climate scientists say that, all things being equal, that adding CO2 will increase the temperature of the planet. That is basically universally agreed to by even the skeptics. The question is given our rate of CO2 dumping, how much is it expected to go up JUST due to the increased CO2.

          Then the next question is ok if it goes up by X amount (whatever it may be) will that cause any positive feedback loops that will further increase that temperature increase.

          In this case, the models that most climate scientists are using say that there will be warming, which will lead to increased arctic ice melt, which will further increase warming. So a key prediction is warming and then arctic ice melt. To throw a bone to the people here the air temperature increase in the last 40 years has tapered off quite a bit in the last 15 or so years. But hopefully you’ll throw me a bone and say “well, the arctic ice melt has actually been going pretty strong for the last 3 decades so you got a point there.”

          Finally, like I said, I hear your claim of sophistry (although I think it is taken out of context). But given your post can you give me your honest thoughts on what you think of Steven’s article that spawned these comments? I mean what do you think his main take away is and how strong is his argument when he resorts to citing fringe failed predictions?

      • Ed Bernal says:

        10,000 years ago (the last Ice Age) there were glaciers as far south as the Northern US; carved out the Great Lakes. What happened to the glaciers? How could they have possibly melted without the “benefit” of human activity to warm up the planet?

        • Koop in VA says:

          They melted due to simple physics and man had nothing to do with it. We are now altering the physical composition of our atmosphere and there are some pretty smart people devoting their entire adult lives to understanding the world that say that adding 200 or 300 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will have large, devastating consequences. And that kinda makes sense to me.

          After all if we removed 200 or 300 ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere compared to pre-industrial figures nearly all life would cease on this planet, right? So if we add 200 or 300 ppm it could have pretty large consequences too, right? Now, I admit that adding 200 to 300 ppm of CO2 would have far less impact than removing 200 to 300 ppm but part of my layman’s attempt at understanding the science tells me that altering “trace” gasses can actually have huge impacts and yet some “skeptics” (admittedly the more ignorant ones) claim that CO2 concentrations are too small to impact the planet, when this is clearly false.

      • AndyG55 says:

        There is a lot MORE ice now that there was for most of the first 3/4 of the Holocene.

        But your history only goes from the most recent cold snap in the 1970’s, 08’s doesn’t it.. because you know nothing else except your force-fed propaganda.

      • AndyG55 says:

        See that little molehill on the right hand end.. that’s now. !!

        We are only just above the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years..

        Here, listen to an actual scientist.. (as opposed to desk climate scientist™)

        • lectrikdog says:

          Koop, despite the fact that CO2 lags behind temperatures by as much as 400 to 800 years in the long haul, 200 to 300 ppm is insignificant. For most of Earth’s history CO2 has been at levels far higher than today. For most of the last 250 million years, CO2 was above 1000 ppm. The only other time CO2 levels were as low as they are today was for most of the Carboniferous and first half of the Permian, or roughly 275 mya to 340 mya.

          As you can see from this image, CO2 over geologic time has been primarily on a downward trend. And at no time has CO2 caused any runaway global warming.

  19. Rhett Rothberg says:

    Why doesn’t the post mention what the orange line indicates? It’s the 30 year average extent for that day… The long term trend is down. Sure, you can look at any two points close in time and draw a conclusion that controverts the long term trend, but is that helpful in really seeing what is going on? No…

    Might be helpful to actually go and look at the data source itself instead of someone’s own attempt to issue their own propaganda….but that involves effort. That is the problem in science today, not science itself. It is the inability and unwillingness of the general public to put in the effort to understand the issues in front of them. They are complicated and technical issues. Ones that can’t be digested in a simple headline….

    Go look at the sight where this post got the image from. Do some of your own investigation and come to your own conclusions…

    • 1979 was the peak for the last half century. Starting a trend line from there is nothing short of fraud.

      • Rhett Rothberg says:

        Your data source for that claim?

        • It is written on the map

        • rah says:

          How about the very site you linked? The trend chart starts at 1979.

        • Rhett Rothberg says:

          Written on which map?

        • Rhett Rothberg says:

          Do you know why their data starts at 1979? Not trying to be difficult, but sort of getting at my point.

        • Frank K. says:

          This comes from Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt. However:

          “Useful satellite data concerning sea ice began in December 1972 with the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR) instrument. However, this was not directly comparable with the later SSMR/SSMI, and so the practical record begins in late 1978 with the launch of NASA’s Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) satellite.,[5] and continues with the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSMI). Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR) and Cryosat-2.

        • Frank K. says:

          What point??

        • Rhett Rothberg says:

          Sorry, my response about why the ice record starts in 1979. It’s not that it was cherry picked as a high point from which a decreasing trend would more readily stand out, but rather that is the first year that we had good satellite observation capability.

          Now, 2012 was a very low ice extent year. So to some extent, this original post is using the very technique that is being decried as fraud. Pick a starting point such that you get a trend that works in your favor.

          So if that works for some people, fine. I care about understanding what is going on and using the best tools to do that. The conclusion I draw is that there is indeed a long term trend of declining ice extent, while at the same time, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rapidly increasing past the 400 ppm mark. People can make of that what they will…

        • rah says:

          First you challenge Steves statement and then admit it but state the obvious. The fact is that nidc is a less than reliable source. Try DMI

          Or perhaps do some comparisons at Cyrosphere like this one:

        • Rhett Rothberg says:

          I didn’t challenge the statement. I’m trying to understand the line of reasoning. I then made the point responding to the claim that it is fraud to start from 1979, when the actual reason is that 1979 is the date when we had access to satellite data.

          As far as data goes, ok, I can cherry pick data too. Again, that’s not the point. The long term trend is the point.

        • Frank K. says:

          So Rhett, what do you think the Arctic conditions were like prior to the satellite era? Do you think that the arctic minimum extent was very large prior to, say, 1950 (when the plot you referenced from the NSIDC begins)?

        • Rhett Rothberg says:

          I don’t know, I don’t have a good data source. Do you?

        • kentclizbe says:

          “I don’t have a good data source…..”

          Luckily, our host has compiled an impressive set of datapoints:

        • kentclizbe says:

          And more Arctic ice observations recorded here:

        • Rhett Rothberg says:

          Thanks… I don’t really see much in the way of data. At least none that answers the question Frank posed regarding the state of Arctic ice prior to 1950.

          I see some claims made in the past based on little or no data or anecdotal data.

          I see some claims that have been made prematurely, but in line with the prevailing trend that the current data supports.

        • Frank K. says:

          The Arctic before 1950…

          ARCTIC PHENOMENON Warming Of Climate Causes Concern
          LOS ANGELES, May 30 1947.

          The possibility of a prodigious rise in the surface of the ocean with resultant widespread inundation, arising from an Arctic climatic phenomenon was discussed yesterday by Dr. Hans Ahlmann, a noted Swedish geophysicist at the University of California Geophysical Institute.

          A mysterious warming of the climate was slowly manifesting it self in the Arctic, Dr. Ahlmann said, and, if the Antarctic ice regions and the major Greenland ice cap should reduce at the same rate as the present melting in the Arctic, oceanic surfaces would rise to catastrophic proportions and people living in the lowlands along their shores would be inundated. He said that temperatures in the Arctic had increased 10deg. Fahrenheit since 1900 an “enormous” rise ‘from a scientific standpoint.

          The waters in the Spitsbergen area in the same period had risen three to five degrees in temperature and one to one and a half millimeters yearly in level. “The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study the conditions on a global basis.” he added. He pointed out that whereas in 1910 the navigable season along western Spitsbergen lasted three months it now lasted eight months.

      • Koop in VA says:

        And writing an article on how arctic sea ice has grown since 2012 is…..?

        Or saying how GW has stopped since 1998 since that was a record year is….?

        On top of that where are you getting your data on 1979 being the peak for the last half century? According to the NSIDC it looks like the late 1960’s all had higher extents than in 1979 and by my math I think the late 1960’s are within the last half century.

  20. Derron says:

    It took them 10+ years of mis-predicting hurricane forecasts before they finally came to their senses and toned down hurricane predictions. It will surely take hundreds of more miles of ice expansion for them to finally ease up on the phony “the polar ice caps are melting” schtick as well.

    • Koop in VA says:

      Do you actually not know that arctic sea ice has steadily declined for decades now?

      • Koop… decades.. or 10,000 years..??

        Why so you suppose Ice has been retreating for 10,000 years?? What portion, if any, does mankind and CO2 play in receding Ice??

        • AndyG55 says:

          For the first 3/4 of the Holocene, Arctic sea ice was often non-existent in summer.

          About 3000 years , a thing called Neoglaciation started (look it up Kool-Aid) which took the world downwards to the depths of the LIA, with beneficial warmer blips at the RWP and MWP

          Fortunately, the planet warmed a small amount from the LIA..

          Unfortunately, it looks like that warming has stopped. 😦

        • Koop in VA says:

          Your point about time frames is valid and so I’ll point that out and accept it. It’s partly why I criticized the initial article and so I like to be consistent. Will you do me the favor and give me your opinion on if my comment concerning the decades long decline is more or less egregious regarding time frames than Steven’s article on ice extent increasing after 3 years?

          As to your next question, my understanding is that increasing CO2 will slowly warm the atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere will tend to cause glaciers and sea ice to melt. It makes sense on a layman’s level but because I can’t do the equations, I have to accept that those that have are correct (if they are truly following the scientific method).

        • AndyG55 says:

          “my understanding is that increasing CO2 will slowly warm the atmosphere”

          There’s your problem..

          Too much anti-CO2 kool-aide.

        • AndyG55 says:

          I repeat, because you seem not to understand.

          There is absolutely NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE in the whole 36 years of the satellite data.

          Think about that… if you can. !

      • AndyG55 says:

        Did you know that for the first 3/4 of the Holocene, there was basically NO summer Arctic sea ice?

        Did you also know that for the last 200 or so years, we have been recovering from the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years?

        • Koop in VA says:

          I like honesty and so I’ll be honest. My understanding of paleoclimatology is not graduate school level, so I’ll trust but verify that your statements are accurate. There are clearly smart skeptics I can learn from and so I’ll gladly accept some of your sourced points of view but you have to admit that this article is (or at least seems to be) designed to give ignorant skeptics the impression that arctic sea ice is on the increase when it is clearly not at the decade time frame (and I’ve already conceded that decade time frame may not be the proper time frame either but it’s definitely better than the 3 year time frame Steven is trying to pass off as well reasoned).

        • AndyG55 says:

          SG is pointing out in his own way, that the Arctic sea ice decline because all the PDO, NAO etc were in the Arctic warming part of their natural 60 or so year cycle, seems to have ended.

          Makes sense, 30-40 years of melting , just happened to start in the “chosen years” of the late 70’s, would come to an end as the natural ocean cycles reverse.

          That’s the major problem with cyclic systems, if you just happen to start at the top or the bottom, then a 30 year period is really going to give you the wrong impression of reality

          You need to realise that the whole climate change farce is carried on cherry-picking the upward or downward leg of these natural cycles.

          But you WILL NOT get that understanding shown on alarmist sites, only on places like here, WUWT, JoNova, Notalotofpeopleknowthat, where the REALITY of longer term cycles and climate history is bought to light.

          You absolutely NEED to become more skeptical of anything you read in the MSM or alarmist blogs.

          We are actually a quite cold period of the Holocene interglacial… It has been much warmer for most of the last 10,000 years.. but the world and its biosphere is still here, and in fact is expanding because of the extra release of accidentally buried Carbon by humans.

          Every living thing on this planet is a CARBON-BASED life form.

          We are SAVING the world with CO2 release , not hurting it.

  21. Dear AGW alarmists; If PhD’s are so all-knowing why do they so often disagree, at what point in time does “weather” become “climate” and what is the difference between “settled science” and propaganda? The world is waiting….

    • rah says:

      That’s easy. For real scientists the determination of what is weather and what is climate remains as it was.

      For the rest anything they perceive as good is weather and anything they can portray as bad is climate. Any cold air is weather and any hot air (except that escaping from their own mouths) is climate. A lack of hurricanes is just chance, but a single large storm that does some damage is an indication of a warming climate. Massive ice gain in the antarctic is not important but some ice sliding off the western shelf is caused by climate. A year of less than average wildfires is irrelevant but one with even a close to average incidence is an indication of climate.

    • LAbillyboy says:

      calculating so-called global average temperatures to hundredths of a degree is irrational. After all, there is very little data for the 70 percent of Earth’s surface that is ocean. There is also little data for mountainous and desert regions, not to mention the Antarctic. Much of the coverage is so sparse that NASA is forced to make the ridiculous claim that regions are adequately covered if there is a temperature-sensing station within nearly 750 miles. This is the distance between Ottawa, Canada, and Myrtle Beach, S.C. cities with very different climates. Yet, according to NASA, only one temperature sensing station is necessary for the two cities and the vast area between them to be adequately represented in their network.

      • marty59 says:

        You forgot to mention that temperature measuring devices were not capable of measuring to better than perhaps .5 deg. and with some margin of error due to inaccuracies of manufacture, lack of calibration across the readable range of the device and reading inaccuracies by those logging the temperature readings. And what about calibration? I suspect that it wasn’t until the establishment of the International Practical Temperature Scale of 1968 that true accuracy of the various temperature reading devices was truly known and error factors could be determined to offset the erroneous readings. Then one must consider that temperature stations were typically located in places of scientific study in the 1800s and early 1900s until the thermometer became cheap enough to become more prevalent in more and more cities. Of course, how many of those stations are properly constructed (and when) to take accurate temperature measurements and with a high degree of accuracy?

  22. That’s just inconvenient…..

  23. Jen Magnus says:

    Ruh Roh! Another LIE from the leftist Marxist criminals! Hang em High!

  24. Cheech says:

    we have a full court press in Kanada by most of the parties trying to win the next election. As they believe in AGW, they project using the North-West Passage as an all year route for shipping. Plans to turn the southern Provinces into rice paddies also is on thier agenda. Current PM Lickspittle remains oblivious to either side of the discourse. AGW remains an article of faith my many of the unwashed as well – the age of insanity is apon us.

  25. Frank K. says:

    For all the global warming enthusiasts who come here via the Drudge Report, I would have much more respect for you if you would simply acknowledge that prior “scientific” predictions of the Arctic’s imminent demise were very, very wrong.

    • kentclizbe says:

      See this for a good overview of historic “the sky is falling” predictions:

    • Al D says:

      Global warming enthusiasts read Drudge? I thought only constitutional conservative kooks like me read Drudge.

    • Koop in VA says:

      You seem not to understand how propaganda can easily influence people so let me explain how it can happen to unsuspecting people. So in the present case you seem to think that scientists agreed that the arctic would be ice free by now. You have been fed this through multiple media outlets that all have told you that AGW is not real. And so now you come on this site and ask for people to acknowledge that “scientific” predictions of the Arctics imminent demise were very, very wrong. Well, do you have any idea of how many people in the scientific community were making the claim that the arctic would be ice free by now? Do you know what the consensus of all the experts actually was?

      What if I told you that you there were a range of predictions by the experts, that probably wouldn’t surprise you right? And what if I told you that if you want to create propaganda that what you would likely do is highlight the fringe range of predictions but make it seem that this was the scientific consensus. Then when the predictions are wrong you laugh at them and say the scientists don’t know what they are talking about.

      Well, look at what people on this site say about the arctic ice extent and what the scientific consensus has been saying for decades. There is a large gap but for purely political reasons the fringe predictions are always highlighted. Then look at what people think about what “scientists” wrote in the 1970’s about cooling. Here people seem to think that scientists were agreed that we were into a phase of global cooling when the scientific papers on global warming actually ran 7 to 1 vs the papers on global cooling. But you don’t hear it here, do you?

      Anyway, to answer your question, yes, the fringe predictions were wildly wrong. However, can you acknowledge that the consensus is more important than the fringe and that the consensus view of climate experts seems to be pretty dead on as the arctic is steadily lowering its extent and losing its volume as predicted?

      • eddie too says:

        I am not sure what media sources you watch and read but I have yet to watch or read a media source that is touting the idea that global climate change is NOT man made.

        most of those who love warm climates and hope for a warmer earth do so because those who want to make the earth colder cannot answer simple questions such as: if human activity is the primary cause for the current changes in the earth’s climate, what caused changes in the past before humans inhabited the earth; and, how are the factors that caused the earth’s climate to change before human existence on earth currently being incorporated in to the cold earthers’ science; or, why do the cold earthers believe we would be better off if we could make the earth colder; and, if (however unlikely) we could actually engineer the earth’s climate to become colder why believe we could then stop it from becoming colder and could make it again start to become warmer?

        these are only a few questions that the lovers of a warmer earth wanted answered.

      • lectrikdog says:

        “I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
        ― Michael Crichton

        To Science, Consensus is Dead!

        “The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.”
        ― Richard Feynman

      • Bill in IL says:

        There is no such thing as AWG, period, end of story. Your constant bleating of BS propaganda notwithstanding. The climate changes, always has, always will whether man is here or not.

        What media outlets have EVER stated / claimed there is no such thing as AGW? They are wrong and you are wrong, get used to it or send a check to Al the Gore, just leave my wallet / bank account out of your equation.

      • Koop.. do you think any of these doomsday predictions repeated week after week, month after month for 20 years now is propaganda?? For the most part.. I totally agree that the more outlandish the statement.. the more attention it gets… however.. the “Consensus” is the fringe… from my perspective.

        Last I checked virtually ALL the News Media Globally promotes Global Warming.. now “Climate Change”.. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, even Fox… BBC, Huff Po, Guardian, NYT, etc.. etc…

        Only a few Blogs like this, a few online news sites contradict Climate Change.. Get Real Science.. the Propaganda is 97% on the Hoaxer Climate Change side… Goddard is working every day to examine and hold accountable the “Consensus” right here, every day..

        Put some of your effort into that..

        • Koop in VA says:

          Ok, help me out here. In 1990, the IPCC issued their first report and they made a prediction of how much temperatures would rise in following years. Now, on “skeptic” sites you will frequently see claims that not a single prediction made by climate scientists have come true and that it is all a hoax. (You can find some of those comments on this thread, no?)

          Well, it’s been 25 years since the prediction. So I ask you: what was the global mean temperature in 1990, what was the prediction for increase per decade, what was the uncertainty range, what was the global mean temperature in say 2010 or 2014, and how does the 2010 or 2014 stack up to the prediction and the uncertainty range? I think those are pretty solid questions and would have some importance on the topic at hand.

          Taking data from NOAA it would seem that from 1990 to 2010 the global mean temperature increased by .27 degrees celsius and from 1990 to 2014 by .31 degrees. So the world is warming. But is it as much as predicted? Well, they predicted .3 degrees per decade on average and we see that it is actually half about what was predicted. But what was the uncertainty range? Well, it seems that the uncertainty range was between .2 and .5 degrees celsius (and in this context I’m not sure what the uncertainty range signifies. I would better understand it if it was a +/- figure but it’s not and I don’t mind being told by you all)

          So, if you stop analyzing it at this level, I think a reasonable person would say something to the effect of: In 1990 scientists predicted that global mean temperature would rise and it has risen but it has not risen by the amount predicted by scientists. In general, I would think that at this level of analysis, you could say the scientific consensus is wrong and the skeptics have a solid point on their side.

          But my understanding is that it would be reasonable to account for the natural variations that departed from normal during this time frame. For example, was there unusual volcanic activity that decreased insolation? Was there diminished solar output? Others? Were there any natural variations that actually would cause an increase and make the models even more wrong? But let’s face it, most people have already checked out of reading this comment and have even further checked out of the debate by this time. But it is my understanding that some scientists reviewed these issues and have concluded that the natural variations produced a slightly above average cooling effect that slightly lowered the increase. But this is where my understanding of my own bias helps a little and I can admit that if you want to fool me that is exactly the type of report I would eat up. But were there demonstrable flaws in the report? I don’t know.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Was there diminished solar output?”

          There has definitely been diminished solar output since the beginning of this century.

          And the latter half of last century of last century has been classified as a “grand solar maximum by scientists not drinking the anti-CO2 kool-aide.

          For example..

  26. Rhett Rothberg says:

    I’m probably the one you’re referring to. I’m not an enthusiast, I hope no one would be enthusiastic about global warming 😉

    Which predictions are you talking about?

    • rokshox says:

      Why? Warm periods in the past correspond to great advances in civilization. Cold periods are associated with famine and disease.

      • Al D says:

        I’m sorry to hear we’re headed for a long period of famine and disease.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Depends how the planet responds to the series of very low solar cycles, current and predicted over the next 20-30 years.

          If the temperature drops to something similar to the LIA, yes, there are going to be serious food and energy supply problems in many parts of the world, Energy especially in those countries that have decimated their fossil fuel driven system for a “feel good” of unreliable, irregular, expensive, not-so-renewables.

      • Rhett Rothberg says:

        I think the issue is about the rate of change. If warming occurs over thousands of years, with primarily agrarian/nomadic societies, the impact is lessened and society can more easily adjust.

        I would argue that todays society, with it’s coastal cities, globalized economy and supply chains, and energy dependent economy is not at all flexible. If sea levels were to rise appreciably over a the course of a few decades, or if climate changes and significantly moves agricultural areas, todays society will have a much harder time responding. And the response will be stratified. Wealthier nations will have more resources to lessen such impacts, but poorer ones will not.

        • rah says:

          Upon what history is your claim based?

        • Ah, I disagree.. Poor nations can just move.. try moving NYC, Tokyo or London…

          Meanwhile, just today where I live we experienced a Sea Level Rise of 72″ .. in just one day!! LOL!! I can’t imagine another 2 inches on top of that.. Lord .. how would we survive??

      • rah says:

        Rhett Rothberg. I would propose that a really cold climate with advancing glaciation (which btw would lead to a dryer climate generally and dropping sea levels) is a far scarier and deadlier possibility than a few degrees of heating? Would you disagree?

  27. It’s because of man-made global warming. More ice–global warming. Less ice–global warming. More hurricanes–global warming. Stronger hurricanes–global warming. Less hurricanes–global warming. Weaker hurricanes–global warming. My car won’t start–global warming.
    Everything gets attributed to man-made global warming, and even when predictions are entirely to the contrary, the cultists never bat an eye.

  28. vidkunl says:

    An interesting habit of the most vociferous global warming/climate change pushers is that they spend a lot of time fantasizing about being agents of genocide and forcing the extinction of the human race.

    Oh, and the vast majority of them are vile, filthy, communists.

    • SerfCityHereWeCome says:

      Vast majority? You’ve discovered one who isn’t?

      • Bill in IL says:

        Yes, please do share, a AWG fanatic that is not red as a tomato is as rare as a unicorn.

      • Koop in VA says:

        There are plenty of self-described conservatives that accept the science. It’s just that they would prefer more market based solutions than command (government) solutions. I count myself as one of them but I must admit that even though I was a staunch Republican from 1989 (when I turned 18) to 2005-ish (when I still hadn’t voted for a Dem) I’m not sure that it is right for me to still self-identify as a conservative. I was actually a social libertarian and a fiscal conservative and I would use the phrase I want conservative amounts of government and liberal amounts of freedom. But for ease of identification I called myself conservative and I voted for Republicans. And, yes, I accept the science.

        • Gail Combs says:

          No, you accept the propaganda. Even the statement ” I accept THE science.” is a clue your talking about propaganda not real science.

  29. LAbillyboy says:

    12,000 years ago, North America was under hundreds of feet of ice and sea levels were 350 lower than they are today. Without any help from humans it warmed up a whole bunch which allowed humans to thrive. What actually causes the Earth to get warmer and colder? The distance from the sun as it’s orbit changes. Yes, it will get very cold again and there is nothing humans can do about it. It is pretty silly to believe humans can alter climate to any significant degree… Even if you believe the alarmists, they are talking about a sea rise of 4 to 12 feet at most and temperature increases of less than 10 degrees… that’s nothing. We will be happy to be starting from there when we go into the next ice age.

  30. iambicpentamaster says:

    Man-caused global warming belief is a religion.

    Self-professing ‘scientists’ exercise great faith in same while persecuting the ‘unbelievers’.

    If you don’t believe in humans’ power over the universe — especially Earth’s atmosphere — to these closed-minded ‘scientists’ you are an infidel, an unbeliever who must be converted or annihilated.

  31. B Da Truth says:

    For several hundred thousand years according to the Ice core samples global warming or cooling has occurred before either rising or falling CO2 levels, never have rising or falling CO2 levels served as a predictor of warming or cooling to follow. Lies Nonsense and Junk Science to serve government at it’s worst.

  32. ralph says:

    I refuse to believe this for it will hurt my brains feelings! Its very hurtful! Please stop and cue back the lies! I hate change!

  33. Vasco DeGama says:

    OH NO! what will libtards do now??? what “cause” will they now have to champion in order to FEEEEL good about themselves? if they don’t have an “impending environmental crisis” to clutch to their breast as the cause celebre du jour, their heads may explode

    • AndyG55 says:

      “what “cause” will they now have to champion in order to FEEEEL good about themselves?”

      Seriously???? .. look at the EU and the refugee/infiltrators !!

      A “feel-good” far-left cause if ever there was one !!

  34. Al D says:

    The reason why the left has made climate change a “sky is falling” issue is they are panicked that this cooling trend will become too apparent either this coming winter or a year later. That will kill the carbon tax plan they’ve been trying to shove down our throats for years.

  35. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Climate change alarmists who despise the fact that Arctic sea ice still exists, will claim that using 2012 as a start point is “cherry picking”. However, even they will realise, regardless of the start point, Arctic sea ice is actually expanding, against all predictions/wishes of AGW catastrophists.

    • Koop in VA says:

      They, well I, will claim it is cherry picking because, well, it is clearly cherry picking.

      Also, in 1990 with the first IPCC they predicted arctic ice loss. In 1990, the sea ice extent for August was 6.8 million sq kms. In August 2015 the arctic sea ice extent was 5.6 million sq kms. That’s about 17 percent loss in extent in only 25 years.

      So why do you think it is expanding?

      • Gail Combs says:

        Change in the AMO and PDO. Storms flush ice out the Fram Strait into the Atlantic where it melts. Remember the Titanic?

        Changes of the Jet stream from zonal to meridional. Probably caused by changes in the amount of EUV/UV from the sun causing changes in the ozone.

        Ozone is an important atmospheric trace constituent. The depletion of solar radiation between approximately 2000 and 3000 A is the result of strong absorption by ozone in the ultraviolet wave-lengths. The energy absorbed in this process is the prime source of thermal energy in the stratosphere. Because of this, ozone plays an important role in the large-scale motions of the atmosphere….

        ….A strong correlation was found between the meridional gradient of total ozone and the wind velocity in jet stream systems…..

        Top-Down Solar Modulation of Climate: evidence for centennial-scale change

        The work presented here is consistent with the interpretation of a recently reported effect [25] of solar variability on the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and European winter temperatures over the interval 1659–2010 in terms of top-down modulation of the blocking phenomenon [52, 53]. In fact, Woollings et al [26] show that the solar response pattern is, despite being similar in form to that of the NAO, significantly different in that it reaches further east. These authors also show that open solar flux has a much stronger control over blocking events in this sector than the previously reported effect of F10.7 [55]. There is seasonality in the solar responses reported here. This is expected as modulation of upwards-propagating planetary waves in wintertime, and the associated stratosphere– troposphere interaction, is most widely believed to be the key mechanism [8, 11]. In addition, the tropospheric signature is a response of the eddy-driven jet streams, and these are at their strongest and most responsive in winter. While the results are presented here as annual means, the regression analysis was actually carried out on monthly mean data and thus takes this seasonality into account. The seasonal evolution of the F10.7 cm flux regression was described in detail by Frame and Gray [53] and this was not significantly affected by using either the open solar flux FS nor the cosmic ray flux, M, instead of F10.7.”

        Click to access 1748-9326_5_3_034008.pdf

        Then we get into the effect on the poles.

        Quasi-biennial oscillation and solar cycle influences on winter Arctic total ozone


        The total column ozone (TCO) observed from satellites and assimilated in the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts since 1979 is used as an atmospheric tracer to study the modulations of the winter Arctic stratosphere by the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) and the solar cycle. It is found that both the QBO and solar forcings in low latitudes can perturb the late winter polar vortex, likely via planetary wave divergence, causing an early breakdown of the vortex in the form of sudden stratospheric warming. As a result, TCO within the vortex in late winter can increase by ~60 Dobson unit during either a solar maximum or an easterly phase of the QBO, or both, relative to the least perturbed state when the solar cycle is minimum and the QBO is in the westerly phase. In addition, from the solar maximum to the solar minimum during the QBO easterly phase, the change in TCO is found to be statistically insignificant. Therefore, the “reversal” of the Holton–Tan effect, reported in some previous studies using lower stratospheric temperature, is not evident in the TCO behavior of both observation and assimilation.

  36. Mitch Rapp says:

    According to Global Warming sycophants, a huge increase in ice is proof positive that there is global warming.

  37. FAIRTV says:

    Somebody tell Obama. He doesn’t know anything until he reads it in the papers.

  38. elvisathome says:

    Mother Earth is listening, watching and feeling everything…you humans are like a disease…Mother Earth is listening to the deafening levels off your noise pollution…she see’s your blinding light pollution…she feels all the weight of your building…she feels the thunder of your wars and accepts your dead…she feels all the drilling and pumping out of her life giving fluids…she hears the screams of her trees and vegetation as you cut them down…she shivers and shakes in response…she hurls wind, rain, hail, thunder, lightening, and waves to cleanse the land and shores…she knows when the sun changes and she reacts…she shows her wrath with the tornado, hurricane, earth quake, tsunami, flood, sand storm and volcano…she has cleansed the land many, many times…she reminds you humans every now and then of just how small and temporary you really are…she changes her mind now and then and shifts deserts and seas…pushes up mountains and sinks shores and islands…she times the drought cycles and the growing seasons…she keeps track of her place in the universe and she knows when to cool and when to sleep…her sleep dissolves and renews the kingdoms in her keep…her presence holds the moon and draws the tides and gives her children room to rise…she keeps them safe upon her breast…until they threaten all the rest…she thins the herds and trims the schools to keep the balance among you fools…she shows you hunger and knows your greed to kill all life to fill your need…yes… Mother Earth is listening, watching and feeling everything…

  39. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

    ,,,but,,,but,,,but,,,it’s getting HOTTER! Why, just yesterday in NYC when it got up to 80 degrees they said it was 97!

    • jwh125 says:

      That is the new Tempspeak the NWO will foist upon us. Your thermometer is broken. The Temperature is 97. End of story. No need to debate the masses.

      • I say a Hundred.. going going any takers.. how about 101 got any 101’s out there. 103 yes, got takers for 103. going going going SOLD!

        Its 103 Degrees today in NYC guys, despite what YOUR Thermometers say..

  40. Lee Akers Sr. says:

    Interesting that it’s mostly politicians, the Sierra Club, and their deluded followers that support the cockamamie global warming nonsense.

    • rah says:

      Yea and most of them are pasty faced computer environmentalists that never once spent the night in their local woods alone let alone hiked out into a wilderness and lived by their own means for any period of time. They claim to know nature but never once lived it!

  41. Rea Ality says:

    Global Climate Change (GCC) is real! It is constant, irreversible, and cyclical. How did all that CO2 and methane end up in the ice at the polar caps? The same way it will cycle around to occur again in the future. Mankind can do nothing to change GCC! The “dooms day” man made global warming crowd make me think of the deck hands arguing about placement order of the deck chairs on the Titanic. And their scientist remind me of the wisest of the cavemen who came out, looked up and noticed the moon for the first time, and threw rocks at it.

  42. You know, I have never believed in either the Global Warming crowd or the Anti Global Warming crowd. You politically minded folks are just shills for people who really know what’s happening. I choose to believe Ice Breaker Captains and Shipping people. And I know quite a few of them, along with petroleum geologists, and also people who work with developing shipping and oil exploration projects for companies like Maersk and Shell oil. All of those people are seeking to expand oil exploration within the Arctic Circle because they know for a fact that the Ice has been diminishing and thinning in recent times, and they believe that this will continue and will present big economic opportunities. Just do an internet search on “Northwest passage becoming more likely”, and you will see that this is a new gold rush for some. Is it being caused by human action? I don’t know. I don’t really care. There’s probably nothing we can do about it, anyway. But it IS happening. Everybody who’s been up there over the last few decades knows that it is. So while you folks argue about this stuff, I’m going to invest.

    • Climate is cyclical. It has all happened many times before.

      • I don’t doubt it. I was trained as and archaeologist originally, and while it is clear that civilizations seem to rise and fall due to climate changes, it always seemed to me that these changes were localized and usually short term (In the scheme of things, that is. After all, a drought lasting 100 years or more is only a blip in time, but enough to cause a state to collapse.) So, I tend to follow the opinions of people who work directly with a situation rather than theoreticians. Those I know who work in the Arctic say it has become warmer and the ice has retreated, on average, within living memory. So I believe them, and when they say that there may be opportunity in that, I believe them. Why do so many people, accepting only a political perspective, fail to appreciate that these cycles exist, and that we should deal with them as such? I know conservatives who insist, despite all evidence, that there has been no change at all in the arctic, and liberals who insist that all the polar bears are now doing the doggie paddle, hoping to find an ice cube to rest on. Both are wrong. I think the whole debate is silly.

        • jwh125 says:

          I like your pragmatic thinking. I would be for letting the entrepreneur to rush in drill and lay pipe to extract while they can while making contingency plans for ice and snows return and keep the government the hell away from it. But what is objectionable is the attempts of some in government to legislate the outcome. Never let a crisis go to waste is their motto. Laying out a new world government to respond to a ebb and flow climate change is ludicrous. When you see that happening on scale the magnitude of which it is today, you need to fight back or you will lose everything you hold dear. Men cannot fairly and honestly rule men.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Laying out a new world government to respond to a ebb and flow climate change is ludicrous. ”

          The ebb and flow of climate is the pretext.. the façade.

          The excuse they decided to propagandise to get control.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “that this will continue and will present big economic opportunities”

      Precisely !!

      There is NOTHING wrong with having less Arctic sea ice..

      It is a monumental plus to all the people in the regions.

      Those ports on the north Russian coast.. used to be ports, you know.. trade, fishing etc

      The LIA and the fact that we still aren’t back anywhere near the beneficial warmth of the first3/4 of the Holocene + RWP and MWP is a real PITA for those communities that are now frozen in for most of the year.

      • Not sure I can totally agree with that. Climate change, cyclical or not, is going to be a plus for some and a big problem for others. There is a growing body of data that civilizational collapses in the Ancient Near East and MesoAmerica were at least partly caused by natural, longer term climate changes (and even these were fairly short, on the order of hundreds or years or so). There is some evidence that a very extended drought in Syria and other Middle Eastern countries is one of the principal drivers of the unrest we are currently seeing. So it is very possible that a warming climate, which may very well be a natural cyclical change, could benefit some, allowing exploitation of mineral wealth in circumpolar regions, for example, it will likely also mean a drying and warming of other parts of the world currently wetter than they will be. That will mean starvation on a large scale, huge migrations of people into more productive regions, and a total shift in global economic power. Can we stop it? Probably not. But we can prepare, and we should. Believing that either we can control the climate, or that it is not going to change at all, is a prescription for disaster. Longer term data on climate is difficult to come by, sometimes equivocal, and is open to widely varying interpretation. The one thing I think is probably fairly well established, is that the last 10,000 years or so have been unusually stable. Perhaps rapid cooling and warming and shifting of moisture patterns is the norm. We haven’t been around long enough to really know.

  43. LaVoz Mexica says:

    i really dislike when science gets in the way of politics.

  44. FriendlyArab says:

    Pretty sure you’d it’s hard not to see that climate change is happening all around us. Just look at the California drought and the fact that this year 2015 has been the hottest year in earth’s recorded history. There’s no point to deny science by actual scientists.

  45. These Marxist religious zealots are no different than all of the other religions. They are trying to hide the truth and stop people from using their frontal lobes to reason In other words, pull us back into our caveman past so they can more easily enslave us.. welcome to the “Neo dark Ages of Marxist religious slavery”.

  46. Ron says:

    Seems to me I remember reading that the Magnetic North Pole of Earth is now shifting at about 39 miles a year pretty much in the same direction that the ice is growing. Could there be a connection?

  47. Co2isplantfoid says:

    When iceland was settled around 800 AD the Vikings encountered fewer glaciers and more trees. Where was the internal combustion engine? Where was fracking? How about the Texas oil fields?

  48. darrylb says:

    After skimming this thread, one thing is for certain.
    There are higher than average and perhaps a record amount of posts. on this thread.
    Some of to which, when I have time, I will have to comment.
    But one thing of importance. should be noted which is often brought up on this blog;
    to do any accurate analysis of any phenomena, a very long and in depth study
    must be done.
    The earth is constantly reacting to forcings by creating negative feedback.
    Again and again studies are done in too small of a region over too short of
    a time period.
    Older people, (like some of us) tend to be more skeptical because we have seen
    it all before.

  49. Ted Wiliburs says:

    So because we can measure the temperature for only the past 50 years (I’m giving a few extra there) We should extrapolate that to mean that for the past 4billion years the temperature was flat before humans? Um yea, and I would like to see the time machine that was used to determine that humans are causing these changes and its not cyclical. I’m sorry but you can look at less than .01% of the history of the planet and make any real and provable observations. That is so unscientific it makes me sick.

  50. st8kout1 says:

    The global warming hoax has never been about science, but a power grab instead for the UN. They need an excuse to override any country’s existing laws and constitutions, such as ours, all in the name of some great pending catastrophe. “We can’t be bothered with your freedoms. We need to save the world.” Yeah, right.

    • Iben_Hadd says:

      The Koch brothers have sent hundreds of sq. miles of refrigerant piping to the arctic just to make Gore and Obama look like fools.
      Wait a darned minute! The Kochs had nothing to do with it?

    • Oliver Clozoff says:

      Climate change is just an excuse to boss people around and take their stuff.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Goddard can’t even get the units right. Sea ice extent is measured in square miles, not miles.


      • AndyG55 says:

        Is that all you have..

        PATHETIC !!

        He is aiming his comments at idiots like you… dragging worms out of the dung heap.

        And he grabs you EVERY TIME.. because you are a mindless moron. !

        Well done SG 🙂

      • John Galt says:

        So, is your point that he is wrong, and the ice isn’t there…or merely that he phrased it incorrectly and that means we should ignore his point?

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          The point here is that he is ignorant, and doesn’t even understand the difference between a length and an area.

          In other responses, we point out that he is also dishonest, claiming that a 2 years of decline is somehow magically shows an upward trend.

          In the above graphic, the 2015 ice level is already well below the blue trend line.

          Goddard lies when he claims the trend is positive.

          Not only is the slope negative but it is concave up, meaning that the rate of ice melt is increasing.

      • Bodhisattva says:

        The answers you seek are available at the sources your posts suggest you already visit.

        Here’s one clue you apparently missed taken from that source:

        “Strong winds from the east in spring of this year opened the ice pack in the eastern Beaufort Sea quite early.”

        Another, also from that source, conclusively demolishes climate alarmists’ claims that there never has been an ice-free passage through the Arctic region until recent (i.e. in the last 30-50 years) extreme global warming opened it:

        “The southerly route through the Northwest Passage is open. The passage was discovered during 1903 to 1906 by Roald Amundsen, who made the first transit of the passage from Baffin Bay to the Beaufort Sea. ”

        It would be easier to fall for climate alarmism if so many of it’s claims weren’t decisively disproven by reality so often.

      • Bodhisattva says:

        In another post where you respond to another poster who responds to your post that “Steven Goddard” is not the real name of the person running this space with THE FACT your name isn’t really “Vendicar Decarian” you claim it is. Isn’t your real name “Scott Nudds”, or is it “Scott Douglas”? Aren’t you the same guy who says it’s “better to be dead than conservative” and is on record as threatening the life of then President George W. Bush?

        You do know that “Vendi car” means “you sell car” in Italian, and “Decarian” has the smell of “Decadent Arian” – so you’ve chosen to represent yourself as a fascist used car salesman?

        Actually a proper measure of sea ice would be volume, which would be cubic units. You didn’t get it right either – square units only measure surface, not actual volume.

      • Ashley Trey says:

        Why come here to argue with people that aren’t going to change their mind.

        • Bodhisattva says:

          Well, that’s not exactly true. Most people here, other than him (assuming he is a him, that is) and his ilk (you?) will listen to an actual logical, honest argument. The fact is he has none. He’s here to gripe and snipe and present ‘art’ pretending to be science. His own sources prove him and his arguments, and the arguments of those like him, wrong.

          Take his complaint here about this:

          “Arctic Has Gained Hundreds Of Miles Of Ice The Last Three Years”

          He gets petty and calls out the author (SG) for saying “miles” instead of “square miles” but the accompanying graphic does show the current minimum ice line was in fact hundreds of miles FURTHER OUT than the record low ice line.

          I happen to agree with VD that it might have been better to express the massively increased ice extent in square miles than in miles, even though miles is in fact correct, but also pointed out to VD that he was also incorrect about the BEST way to express the ice mass – in CUBIC MILES or some other CUBIC/VOLUME expression, since merely pointing out it’s further out, or covers a larger area, does not tell the actual story the best way possible.

          Alas, I’m not sure we have accurate measurements of the VOLUME of Arctic ice. Just the AREA, so we may have to stick with the squared units, for now. Though, one final time, simply saying that the ice coverage was hundreds of miles further out than before was in fact a true statement that does get the intended point across.

      • Michael Jankowski says:

        Here’s a great failed prediction from our own Vendicar Decarian (errrr…Scott Nudds)!
        …claiming PCs “will never have gigabytes of RAM.”

        You’re a legendary failure and a troll. How can you dare criticize anyone else for using a fake name or getting something wrong?

  51. Help me out… This info completely contradicts…

    • Clinton Grant says:

      I agree with what Stevengoddard says: NSIDC starts their graphs in 1979, which was the peak ice from the last half century. Only a complete clown would be fooled by such a fraudulent use of data.

      • Warren Bork says:

        1979 was the first year they started to record and study Arctic sea ice. There is no data at all prior to 1979. So with such a short period of time of study and, more importantly, minimal DATA to use, they have the hubris to tell us that they know and understand what is going on in the Arctic? Give me a break. A planet 5 billion yrs old, having gone through multiple ice ages, tectonic plate shifting, volcanism, meteor strikes and everything man can throw at her over the last 300 yrs… it seems pretty arrogant to think we know best when we have a scant 30+ years of recorded data to confidently predict what the Arctic Ocean is going to do…. and then to assume Human’s had any effect. Preposterous.

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        Steven Goddard is a well know liar.

        I don’t see a peak there. Can you point it out to us?

        • Bodhisattva says:

          What, exactly, is the source of that ‘global warming art’ you included in your post?

        • Bodhisattva says:

          I attempted to check you out to see what you’re about. Here is what I found so far, care to tell us how much is accurate?

          You are likely Canadian and you apparently post under a variety of names, including, but not limited to this one as well as SCOTT NUDDS and SCOTT DOUGLAS. I’m wondering if those aren’t also just false names you’ve used as well – and how many others?

          In 2003 and 2004 you made posts that included the following:

          – a desire to “Torture Bush… Execute Bush.”

          – your claim that “The more dead Americans in Iraq the better”

          – in your opinion “It’s better to be dead than conservative.”


          – “The world needs more dead Americans in Afghanastan & Iraq”.

          Tell me, how do you feel about Obama and his use of drone strikes with their inevitable collateral civilian casualties? Do you have similar angry things to say about him?

          And why do you so obsessively post your nonsense here where you know it likely will receive little traction? Don’t you have a life?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Its from SkS… roflmao !

          I told you he would resort to that low-end anti-science site eventually. 🙂

    • Take a second look. Both show 2012 as the minimum year. Both have 2015 as having more ice than 2012. + the earlier articles say the arctic was going to be ice free.

      • DotDotDot-DashDashDash-DotDotDot says:

        Showing plus or minus 2 standard deviations is deceptive. Any engineer, scientist, mathematician, knows that a data point should exceed plus or minus 3 standard deviations before it is even considered a potential anomaly.

        • AndyG55 says:

          No, we generally use 2sd.

        • Data Matters says:

          Medical Laboratories reject the Validity of Repeated Results which exceed 2 SD.
          If an Assay repeatedly exceeds a 2SD Variance, then the Nethod and Calibration are not considered to be accurate.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Liar. Liar.. Pants on fire…

          “plus or minus 3 standard deviations before it is even considered a potential anomaly” – dotboy

          For a single measurement in a normal distribution, measurements are expected to fall within..

          1 standard deviation 68.2% of the time
          2 standard deviation 95.4% of the time
          3 standard deviation 99/6% of the time

          2 standard deviations is the typical criterion.

          However, if you were a competent engineer then you wouldn’t be using simple standard
          deviations to evaluate the significance of a time series.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Liar. Liar.. Pants on fire…”

          VD in kindergarten!

          How does that happen ??

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “If an Assay repeatedly exceeds a 2SD Variance, then the Nethod and Calibration are not considered to be accurate.” – Data matters

          Variance is not the same as standard deviation.

          2SD Variance is

          First, meaningless due to duplication

          Second if interpreted to mean 2SD then what you have said is that calibrations are not accurate if the standard falls out of the 95% confidence limit.

          I would hope that a calibrated value falls well within a confidence limit of only a few percent.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Oh, it is quite simple to explain.

      Steven Goddard (that isn’t his real name), is a liar.

      You can see a nice little chart here…. 2013 and 2014 both had higher ice extents than 2012 – which had the least.

      2015 is coming in lower than 2013 and 2014. So ice extent is not rising, but falling, contrary to Goddard’s lie.

      • R. Shearer says:

        What’s your prediction? Ice free in 2016?

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Extrapolating linearly from the graph I provide below, we can expect the September arctic to be completely ice free in 50 years.

          However, less ice means more warming so there is a strong non-linear trend to the melt that is self evident in the plot below.

          A more reasonable estimate can be obtained from the following plot.

          Which when extrapolated puts zero average September ice extent about 12 to 15 years away.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “when extrapolated ”


          Your hilarious ignorance is continually displayed.. 🙂

          Did you ever get past kindergarten level??

        • Random Schmoe says:

          Actually, the US Navy has made that prediction already.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “When extrapolted” “roflmao..” – AndyG55

          In science, as a general principle, when we see things changing, we presume they will continue to change in the same way unless there is some factor that changes the reason for the change.

          For example, extrapolation is the basis of Newton’s first law of motion.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Only a COMPLETE MORON extrapolates in a system that is known to be cyclic/ chaotic .

          Or a “Climate scientist™” … or a climate change “believer”

          oops ..all the same thing

      • Michael Jankowski says:

        Vendicar Decarian isn’t your real name, either.

      • Al Kirby says:

        Says the well known lying Obama blog troll.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          2013 – minimum ice extent higher than 2015
          2014 – minimum ice extent higher than 2015

          On the above graph, 2015 will come in somewhat below the blue trend line.

          Stephen Goddard is a well known liar.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Ven dick are a well know lying POS !

        • Snowleopard says:

          O’Bomber is the well known liar.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “Ven dick are a well know lying POS !” – AndyG55

          I’m not sure how reporting the data and providing a graph of that data makes me
          a POS.

          Only in a mentally ill mind, could it ever be the case.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your graph indicates only the downward leg of a cycle.

          Putting a linear trend onto it is moronic, unscientific and tantamount to being FRAUD and a LIE.

          You know that.. but just keep doing it.

          That adds deceit and stupidity to fraud and lies

      • shawn says:

        LOL, and the Pope is Presbyterian…none of your dire predictions have rang true, be it the polar ice or the more frequent hurricanes/tornadoes, which have drastically decreased.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Climate models show that hurricanes will be less frequent by stronger.

          This is exactly what is being observed.

          As to Tornado’s, climate models have no say on them because they are too small scale for them to be modeled.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Hurricane frequencies are however up slightly…

          As well as intensities.

      • starvinmarvin says:

        well, anyone being honest with themselves (i.e. any non-lib) has to realize from this article that lib power-whores have been saying for over the last decade now that the artic ice should be gone by now. And regardless what your little charts say, it’s very obvious we’re not even close to such a scenario. Really, whose been lying? And while we’re at it, what predictiions from the Warmers have come true at all? Any? Are you saying everything they tell us is a lie?

        • Warren Bork says:

          “What predictions from the Warmers have come true at all?” None. They are liars, all. It took 20 seconds for them all to see where the money was going to be spent… they all lined up like beggars for their research hand-out. They threw their ethics away for mere money.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Sorry, but the scientific community has not claimed that the polar ice caps would be gone by now. Neither has Al Gore.

          According to one of the Links Stephen Goddard (the author of the nonsense article above)

          “One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.”

          So in your eyes, speculation by one scientist has somehow magically become the consensus opinion of scientists.

          Sorry boy. You are living on planet self-delusion.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          ““What predictions from the Warmers have come true at all?” None.” – Warren Borked

          You mean other than the observations that the globe is warming?

          We scientists also predict that

          The oceans will acidify. They are acidifying.
          The Ice caps will melt. They are melting.
          Humidity levels will increase. They are observed to be increasing.
          Plants and animals will migrate to cooler climates. They are seen to be doing so.
          Drought conditions will grow. They have grown.
          Stronger storms. Now stronger.
          The upper atmosphere will cool. It is observed to be cooling.

          etc. etc. etc.

          My goodness you are ignorant, Warren.

        • AndyG55 says:

          What a monumental pack of LIES all packed into post.

          How does one answer ALL YOU LIES at once. so just the first

          “The oceans will acidify. They are acidifying.”

          No they are not.. they remain rather alkaline.
          and there is zero proof that that alkalinity has changed.

          They will never, and can never become acidic

          You are a base level LIAR !!

      • Ya know some fools just will stay programmed and propagandized regardless of what the facts are. Evidently you didn’t read the article. But given you’re an example of public school (lack) education. You can’t help it that you’ve been conditioned to not think for yourself.

      • Wackadoo says:

        Its a net gain. There will always be upward and downward cycles, but overall its been an upward trend. That’s the point.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…

          “its been an upward trend”

          Clearly not.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Since 2012 , it most definitely has been

          Which is exactly what SG shows.

          There is only one LIAR around here.. and that is YOU !!!

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “There is only one LIAR around here.. and that is YOU !!!” – AndyG55

          I’m not sure how I am lying by posting a plot of September Arctic sea ice extent.

          Perhaps you are off your anti-psychosis meds again.

    • Tim Milhomme says:

      They are lying also ? In most cases of any info out there follow the money. You find out where these so called experts pay check comes from and then you will have a good idea why they are putting out the information they do.

    • Kyle Tingle says:

      Carefully read the article. Goddard is does not say 2015 is greater than 2013 or 2014, just that in the past three years, it is greater than the 2012 minimum and much of the new ice is multi-year ice. Nice wordsmith job, but accurate.

    • Bodhisattva says:

      The simple fact is we don’t have enough of an accurate record of Arctic ice behavior to really say what’s normal and what’s abnormal. Those who’s goal is to force us to waste money trying to ‘stop climate change’ have a vested interest in scaring us into rushing to support their scams and frauds, with or without our consent for their jobs, incomes and lifestyles may literally depend on them continuing to do so. And by falsifying climate data as they’ve been caught doing, these people are setting real climate science back decades if not centuries. We need to have an unaltered, unbiased, factual and long record of Arctic ice behavior before we start jumping to dubious conclusions. Yes, we recently had a RELATIVE low in Arctic ice, and there’s nothing to guarantee, since we are in an interglacial period, it won’t be the last. The Arctic has been ice-free in the past, hasn’t it? More than once? There’s nothing unusual or unnatural about that. Why does it scare some people so much? As it is intended to, by some, I remind you.

  52. says:

    This post is a classic example of the logical fallacy of cherry-picking. The author compares today’s ice with the lowest on record (2012) and claims the ice is “growing”. But if they did the same comparison with 2013 or 2014, their conclusion would be the opposite, since today’s minimum is significantly lower than those two years. Look at the long term trend from 1981 to today and you will see that today’s ice extent is significantly lower than that long-term average, and lower than the last two years. It is shoddy reasoning like the one made above that has allowed denialism to persist as long as it has. Anyone inclined to buy the argument being made above that arctic ice cover is increasing, should check out this tool to get a more complete understanding of the story:

    • NSIDC starts their graphs in 1979, which was the peak ice from the last half century. Only a complete clown would be fooled by such a fraudulent use of data.

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        Liar, Liar… Pants on fire.

        There is no minimum ice extent data prior to 1979.

        Why do you feel a need to lie about it?

        • R. Shearer says:

          The satellite record began in the early 1970’s.

        • Unsure66 says:

          Ok, since you disagree with his argument against using 1979 as a benchmark, can you provide an enticing arguing FOR using 1979?

        • Michael Jankowski says:

          Are you that big of a moron or just that big of a liar yourself?

          NSIDC says there’s sea ice extent data prior to 1979. It’s just not the continuous satellite record we’re used to seeing these days.

        • larry hamilton says:

          It is impossible to tell the absolute truth which can never proved by the science and math guys simply because of the enormity of the task. For instance many of the follow must be answered. How much ice is in the arctic? A lot, that doesn’t seem to be a sufficient answer. How did it get there. Cause the water got cold also doesn’t seem to satisfy them. But hey, it’s melting. Yeah, I noticed, But doesn’t it melt every year? But it’s killing the white bears.. How do you know? Cause it said so on tv. How do they know? Did they (tv announcers with nothing better to do) count them and mark the ones they saw and then count the babies. I know a little about programming, I have a question. If it’s so easy to tell how much water or ice or even bears there are in a given location by measuring what’s in one bucket you put in each square mile, seems we could find oil with that technique….huh huh huh? I will believe the guys who have obvious agenda when they fully provide their data gathering techniques to third parties who can both duplicate their quantities and assertions. If they can’t do that, its a scam, go point sand and take Gore with you.

        • Donald Olson says:

          I’m curious as to what your prediction is for an ice free Arctic.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Biomarkers clearly indicate that the minimum before 1979 was ZERO, during most of the first 3/4 of the Holocene for that matter.

          Compared to the rest of the current interglacial, Arctic sea ice levels are anomalously HIGH. !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Correction.. during SUMMER for most of the first 3/4 of the Holocene.

        • Bodhisattva says:

          “There is no minimum ice extent data prior to 1979.”

          So you’re saying the graphs you and other climate alarmists use to imply this is something terrible happening in the Arctic are based on manufactured data?

          You posted a graph showing summer ice extent going all the way back to the late 1800s and now you claim that no data for the chart you presented exists?

          What’s up with that?

      • Southern Son says:

        Only a Complete Clown would believe a FOOL like gore. Or obamadenijad!!

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Gore is not a scientist, but he accurately reports the science.

          That is why he is so highly admired in the Scientific Community.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Gore is not a scientist, but he accurately reports the science.”

          ROFLMAO ! This must be satire !!!

          Now you truly are getting to the ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS stage.

          Such hilarity !! Keep drinking the kool-aide , you mindless twerp ! 🙂

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Gore – Nobel prize winner.

          Gore is not a scientist, but he accurately reports the science.

          That is why he is so highly admired in the Scientific Community.

        • Bodhisattva says:

          While aaforres makes a valid point that name calling doesn’t exactly help advance any arguments, he apparently also does not realize how “Vendicar Decarian”, who by the way reveals his own outright dishonesty by insisting that is actually his name (well I acknowledge he could have gone to some judge and had his name legally changed to that, but I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest he didn’t and it isn’t his birth/given name despite his claims), has made himself so unwelcome here with his nonsense that some, in their frustration, are simply pointing out the FACT that only a complete clown would believe a fool like Gore.

          Gore got what Nobel prize? In what science was he awarded a prize?

          No science whatsoever.

          The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the biggest jokes on the planet, having been awarded to more than one terrorist and now, before he even took office, to a President who has arguably caused more death, misery and destruction than any other in my lifetime.

          No scientists was behind the decision to award Gore the PEACE PRIZE, which isn’t awarded to scientists or on the basis of scientific knowledge. It’s basically become the “everyone (that we think deserves one but hasn’t done anything to ACTUALLY deserve one) gets a ribbon” of the Nobel Prizes.

          As for VD’s comments that I cannot reply to (apparently this site only lets you go so deep, so I will respond to them here):

          “The primary problem with AndyG55’s graphic is it’s source of course. A denialist blogger with a history of deception.

          The primary deception in the graphic is comes from the fact that this is supposedly temperatures obtained from an ice core.

          But of course, ice cores can’t provide current temperatures because there is no ice to core. So the plot necessarily omits the real measured temperature at the site.”

          NOW, VD starts out by complaining that the graphic AndyG55 provided doesn’t show the current temperature AND THEN ADMITS THAT IT COULD NOT HONESTLY AND ACCURATELY DO SO since ice cores cannot do that.

          This is the convoluted logic I see in many of VDs arguments, but even more important than that, he started out by attacking the source – saying we should not even look at the graphic because it came form a source VD claims he doesn’t like, so automatically we’re not allowed to consider anything that comes from there.

          This is how alarmists and liberals in general get caught up in ‘groupthink’ which tends more often than not to lead to false conclusions – they are so busy agreeing to not even consider any data or source one of them happens to ‘not like’ that pretty soon no valid data is left available to them.

      • aaforres says:

        Does calling people who disagree with your interpretation of the data, and who are in the process of trying to figure out the truth behind complex data sets “complete clowns” really help at all? If you disagree with NSIDC’s analysis, why not just direct us to the reference where we can see the data you find convincing? If it’s so obvious, as you imply, then reasonable people will find it as convincing as you. Instead you result to name calling and grandstanding? Way to elevate the debate. Sheesh.

    • Dino says:

      Dear Dr. Who,

      By your own admission, this means that the ice actually grew prior to the last 2 years, which if I’m not mistaken contradicts what you climate coolaid drinkers have said happens each year. Also what is the magic with the year 1981? Why not 1979 or 1950 or 1850? Talk about cherry picking. You guys really have no clue and no proof that these variations are man made. All you have are theories and you get billions while people starve around the world. Here’s a tip for you: more people die of starvation every year than will ever die from “global warming”!

      • Warren Bork says:

        Nobody ever died because there was less ice in the Arctic Ocean, either. I’d like to see the money wasted on climate-change research spent on tractors and irrigation equipment for the people of Sub-Saharan Africa. Throw in a big dose of DDT to eradicate malaria while you are at it. As human beings, we need to look after each other. Naval-gazing about some imaginary problem that doesn’t exist is the height of foolishness.

        • Snowleopard says:

          Unfortunately we are not ruled by altruists.

          Since Africa will be a breadbasket once glaciation is re-established, perhaps they don’t want it too populated or the rest of the world competing for it while they destabilize and take it over? It’s lots easier to do if the world is “fighting” non-existent runaway warming. Will help reduce the “surplus population” as well.

          Consider where there’s been conflict since the mid 70s. Consider also where crops will grow during an Ice Age. Note the overlap. Think it’s a coincidence?

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        If you don’t like 1979 then there is a longer synthetic record shown above.

        • Snowleopard says:

          That graph does not agree very well with the widely reported melting from mid 1920s thru mid 1930s.

        • Bodhisattva says:

          So what, are you saying the data that you claimed didn’t exist in another post was actually “synthetic”, i.e. TOTALLY MADE UP?

          We who have the capability to think logically and rationally cannot understand those like you who are totally willing to accept ‘synthetic’ sources which are obviously dubious at best and often proven frauds at worst.

          You can keep your ‘synthetic’ data, we prefer to see what’s actually happening in the real world: REALITY. The reality is the minimum ice is currently greater than it was during the big ‘minimum ice coverage’ scare your side attempted to use to stampede people into action based on emotions rather than truth, logic and reason.

          Now we might set another record low – which I suggest is a good thing.

          Funny though, are you as passionate each time that the Antarctic sets a new record for greatest ice extent ever measured, or do you just take note when it starts to melt and you can trumpet the ‘fastest melting ever seen in the Antarctic’ due to how much further than normal it grew in a given year? Are you one of those who insists, every year, that the impending certain collapse of the Larsen ice shelves will result in all the ice sliding off Antarctica into the ocean, who never bothered to look at a map and see where the Larsen ice shelves even are?

    • ‘Long-term’ from is from 1981? Seriously?

      Geologically, that is the blink of an eye.

      Warmists won’t be happy unless we have glaciers plowing down the Hudson River valley again.

      • aaforres says:

        For those of you who uncharitably took me to be saying something I am not, let me be clear: My point is not that taking the whole picture from 1981 yields an absolutely conclusive prediction, but that taking the whole picture from 1981 onward is far superior to cherry picking a single year, that happens to be the record low, and comparing today’s ice to that and concluding that ice is “growing”. All of the recorded minimums since 2003 onward have been lower than the 1981 – 2010 average, most of the recorded minimums before 2003 were much HIGHER than the 1981 – 2010 average. In terms of basic math, this represents a significant SHRINKING trend. Does it guarantee that the ice will disappear one day soon? NO! Of course it doesn’t. But to use the image that led this article to suggest ice is growing is flat-out deception and the person who put together that graphic is likely smart enough to know it. As for the point that 1981-2015 is really short (too short to be considered long-term), I hear you! It is exactly the fact that there is such a significant shrinking trend in such a short time frame that is so alarming. I hope y’all are right that 2012 was the low point, and it will be all growth and stabilization from here on out. But the numbers–if you look at them honestly–don’t make that look likely.

        • The 1990 IPCC report showed an increase of 2 million km sq. from 1974 to 1979, based on NOAA satellite data. Cherry picking 1979 as a start point is scientific malfeasance.

        • aaforres says:

          Not sure why I can’t reply directly to steven goddard below, but I have a question: How does the 1974-1979 data compare to the 1981-2010 trend? You mention the increase of 2 million, but not the over all size. I’d actually love to look at the data if you could refer me to the place in the report where you are getting it from! Thanks!

        • AndyG55 says:

          The overall amount of Arctic sea ice currently much higher than it was in summer for the first 3/4 of the Holocene.

          They used to have functional fishing ports on the north coast of Russia..

          Look up the term Neoglaciation or look at this graph.

          See that little dump on the right hand end..

          That’s NOW !!!

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          That rather silly graphic comes from Blogger Ed Hoskins using data from an unknown source, and omitting the last 100 years of warming.

          Certainly ice core data does not and can not provide temperatures over the last few decades because there is no ice to core.

          So none of the warming in Greenland over the last few decades is reported in that purposely misleading graphic.

          Further, the temperature profile at a specific spot in Greenland does not represent the temperature over the entire globe. The temperatures reported are not even regional, they are local, since they are taken at a single point.

          So why did you feel it important to repeat that Lie of omission AndyG55?

        • Snowleopard says:

          Certainly a warmunist can consider that graphic misleading, and I concede that it doesn’t help one decide anything about the short term trend. Depending on where you are it takes several years to several decades for firn to condense into ice fit for coring.

          The graphic’s usefulness is in putting the likelihood of runaway warming into the historic perspective of the Arctic cooling of the last four thousand years.

          It is interesting that warmunists consider the Arctic to be the “canary in the coal mine” EXCEPT when you try to point out this historic cooling trend.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “Certainly a warmunist can consider that graphic misleading” – Snowleopard

          The primary problem with AndyG55’s graphic is it’s source of course. A denialist blogger with a history of deception.

          The primary deception in the graphic is comes from the fact that this is supposedly temperatures obtained from an ice core.

          But of course, ice cores can’t provide current temperatures because there is no ice to core. So the plot necessarily omits the real measured temperature at the site.

          And yet no mention is made of this.

          We could dig down and find out how the temperatures for that site have really changed if we knew the source.

          But we don’t, because the purpose of AndyG55 is to lie through propaganda, and not to provide real information.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Liar. Liar.. Pants on fire.

          “The 1990 IPCC report showed an increase” – Steven Goddard

          You do know that that report is now 25 years old don’t you?

      • Bodhisattva says:

        Good point. Funny how 20+ years with no statistically significant global warming is NOT enough to start drawing conclusions but this is.

        Of course they’ve been ‘adjusting’ the measurement network and the data from it to insert plenty of ‘man-made global warming’ for some time now and they still can’t seem to get nature to ‘play ball’.

      • Bodhisattva says:

        There are suggestions that the two solar cycles that determine it’s output are both trending towards coincident minimums and the result may well be another Maunder Minimum or similar.

        Of course there were no actual scientists warning of a snowball Earth in the 70s, warning we were overdue the next ice age, and nothing of that sort was ever published in the press or made the covers of Newsweek and Time, right?

        DIdn’t Hansen actually do some computer work for one of those ‘didn’t actually exist’ scientists who was predicting an ice age? I’m pretty sure he did.

    • The planet is ~4.5 billions of years old. The climate has been stable for ~ 10k years. Modern life could only exist from this short time period of relatively stable weather. NO ONE has enough long term data to say what the future will be.
      Over 99% of species have gone extinct without our help. Doesn’t look good for humans in the long term.

      • Burt says:

        Im sorry but this is completely logical. Your points make sense. You need to calm down and re-read these posts with more emotion. You might come to the wrong conclusions otherwise.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “The biosphere has expanded some 10-15% over the last 50 or so years..” – AndyG55

          Tell that to California.

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        Yup, There just isn’t enough data to determine if you are going to sprout wings and fly Venus and start your own kook tard farm.

        We are interested in the climate over human time scales, and over relaxation time scales pertinent to evolution.

        The first determines how badly we will directly be impacted, and the second determines how badly the biosphere will be badly impacted.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “how badly the biosphere will be badly impacted.”

          The biosphere has expanded some 10-15% over the last 50 or so years..

          That’s how hard its been impacted by the increased atmospheric CO2. ! 🙂

          Gees, keep posting, child-mind..

          …. your display of gross ignorance leaves sooooo many openings. 🙂

      • AndyG55 says:

        “We are interested in the climate over human time scales”

        Here you go

        See that little bump at the right hand end.. That’s NOW. !!

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          That rather silly graphic comes from Blogger Ed Hoskins using data from an unknown source, and omitting the last 100 years of warming.

          Certainly ice core data does not and can not provide temperatures over the last few decades because there is no ice to core.

          So none of the warming in Greenland over the last few decades is reported in that purposely misleading graphic.

          Further, the temperature profile at a specific spot in Greenland does not represent the temperature over the entire globe. The temperatures reported are not even regional, they are local, since they are taken at a single point.

          So why did you feel it important to repeat that Lie of omission AndyG55?

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        “The planet is ~4.5 billions of years old.” – Mike MacKinney

        Yes, and the strength of a truss is unknowable for the same reason.

        Poor mike. He must be an engineer of toilets or something.

      • Bodhisattva says:

        And what’s more important – correct me if I’m wrong please – the relatively stable climate period we’ve been in for those 10k or so years is also somewhat warmer than ‘usual’ or ‘average’ and in fact climate would fluctuate between some pretty wild extremes before humans came along – supporting an argument that even if those of us who claim humans are not exerting a significant or controlling effect on weather, temperature and climate are wrong, evidence suggests any influence we might be having is actually good, in the long run.

        Who ever said the Earth was already at optimum temperature? Who exactly decreed that global warming was all bad? Personally I don’t think so. Yeah, there will be changes, not all of them good, but overall, based on the geologic record, I’m betting things will be better with some warming.

        The one thing that is certain is that climate will change. Now it can change by getting warmer and it can change by getting cooler. Personally I’ve reviewed the evidence and I’ve concluded that a warmer Earth will be superior in most ways to a cooler Earth.

    • Ted says:

      “Cherry picking” Uh, huh. Let’s talk about cherry picking at the most basic level of this whole AGW argument. In real science, something that makes up 0.045% of your sampling would be called a “trace element.” As in hardly a trace. As in a trace element wouldn’t even be considered in the data analysis because it is so insignificant as to make any difference at all. Again that’s in real science, not in science where big pots of money is to be made. What I’m talking about, of course, is the “sky is falling” dance that alarmists are saying we reached the “melting point” (har har) of 400 ppm. “Ppm” as in parts per MILLION. As in out of 10,000 grains of rice, we are talking about 4 grains. Ya think 4 grains will make a difference in that cup of rice? Naw. Oh, and BTW, out of that 400 ppm, most of it is caused by ocean water vapor, around 95% to 99% of it. It is estimated that CO2 from fossil fuels accounts for 3% to 5% of that 400 ppm. That’s 1/4th of one grain of rice. The rest is from deforestation and plant respiration. So on the very basic level of this CO2 and AGW argument, who is doing the cherry picking?

      • RON gorecki says:

        I thought the world ended 2012

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Several dozen canaries in the coal mine died that year.

          You are content to breathe the poison that killed them.

          Scientists are significantly more concerned than you are.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “You are content to breathe the poison that killed them.”

          You seem content to breathe out 40,000 ppm CO2.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “You seem content to breathe out 40,000 ppm CO2.” – AndyG55

          Thanks for confirming to us that you are mental ill, Andy.

      • RON gorecki says:

        The world tilts as well as spins picture that with two balls one earth one Sun all explained

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        Ted appears to believe that trace elements are inconsequential, and hence CO2 at 400 ppmv is also inconsequential.

        I guess that means that since the human body has iron present at 60 ppm, that there would be no problem if it was removed entirely. It is a trace element after all.

        Ted should try this, and see how much he can lower this trace element in his body before he dies trying to lower it to zero.

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        “Ya think 4 grains will make a difference in that cup of rice?” – Ted

        Would you eat a cup of rice containing 4 mouse turds?

        Put 8 drops of food coloring into 2 liters of water (a 2 liter pop bottle).

        Does the color of the water change?

        That change is caused by 200 ppmv of a trace element – the pigment.

        Now add another 8 drops of food coloring. Does the water change color again?

        That is 400 ppmv.

        Now put 2 liters of water in a fresh bottle, and put it and the colored bottle outside in the sun.

        Which warms faster?

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        “out of that 400 ppm, most of it is caused by ocean water vapor” – Ted

        My goodness Ted. You do know that water vapor is H2O, right?

        You do know that Carbon Dioxide is CO2, right?

        You do know that there is no Carbon atoms in water vapor, right?

        So you do know that it is impossible for CO2 to come from water vapor (H2O), right?

        Apparently you know none of the above, right?

        Please refrain from commenting until you learn some grade 5 level science.

        • Snowleopard says:

          If you cannot refute a point, you can always make point out errors in how it is stated. Are you a lawyer?

          The basic point that most of the increase in CO2 is outgassed from the warmer ocean remains.

          When the ocean cools enough to resume net absorption of CO2, then perhaps the manmade portion (if measurable at all) will be clear to you folks.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire..

          “The basic point that most of the increase in CO2 is outgassed from the warmer ocean remains.”

          If that were the case then Ocean CO2 levels would be declining, not increasing as observed.

          My goodness you are silly.

      • Bodhisattva says:

        I like to remind the alarmists they’re claiming that a change from 3 to 4 fans of the opposing team in a stadium of 10,000 is going to have a noticeable effect.

        Or that 3, or 4, opposing fans in a stadium of 10,000 is even going to have a measurable effect.

        I hate to burst their bubble, but the heavy lifter when it comes to misnamed ‘greenhouse’ warming is water vapor.

        Even their theories said that CO2 would cause an increase in water vapor (that we’re not seeing) and THAT would lead to the catastrophic warming they’re going on about.

        I think you were a bit hasty with some of your numbers – for instance the .045% is off a bit and the 1/4 of one grain of rice was a generous overestimate. But your logic is sound. Maybe I just am not following your math, too.

        The biggest joke is how they’re going on about ‘missing heat’. What do they think is powering all the life that’s going on here on Earth? That missing energy is all around us, powering all sorts of chemical reactions. They just don’t know the math, or they do and they’re hiding it from us for whatever reasons some conspiracy folks are better equipped to figure out than I am. I just fall back on their inherent need to get attention, fortune and power – which seems to be the simple things motivating them. Oh, and the need to continue to be right even though, by now, even they need to give up and admit they’re wrong.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Just more BS from Stevengoddard..

          My goodness Stephen, you have just claimed that 2 years of decline is an increase.

          Don’t you know up from down?

      • AndyG55 says:

        You goose,

        Those ports on the north coast of Russia used to be fishing villages.

        Not much of that since the LIA, hey !

        Massive benefits to them if they could actually get out in boats once again !!

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Liar, Liar.. Pants on fire.

          “Those ports on the north coast of Russia used to be fishing villages.” – Andy55

          While certainly people in what is now Northern Siberia caught fish in the summer months, there were no villages who’s primary task was fishing.

          Typically in the region the human population is a parasite to reindeer.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Still in kindy, I see. 🙂

          Grow up , child-mind. !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “While certainly people in what is now Northern Siberia caught fish in the summer months”

          thank you 🙂

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “Fishing villages” – AndyG55

          “there were no villages who’s primary task was fishing.” – Vendicar Decarian

          “Thank You” – AndyG55

          You are welcome.

      • Bodhisattva says:

        I hate to break this to you, but during interglacial periods, ICE MELTS! You think this is a bad thing? Would you rather live in a time when there are ice sheets 2 miles thick covering much of Europe, Asia and North America? When famine and disease were rampant and the biosphere struggled to survive?

        Yes, as long as the interglacial period lasts I expect the overall trend is going to be less ice, though down in Antarctica they’ve actually been setting records for greatest sea ice extent ever measured and I don’t see you alarmists getting all excited and sharing that!

        Now as for your linked article… thanks to the retreating ice we have greater fisheries – and of course all you can see in that is bad, bad, bad.

        Tell me, is there anything happening anywhere that you see as good?

        Anything at all?

        Must suck to be you!

    • Thought Recon says:

      “long term trend from 1981?!! Where do you idiots come from?! Impress me with a long term trend since…lets say…the triassic period. Haha! It’s all about perspective genius. The world is MUCH cooler today that a few million years ago. With that said, i like warm so will do my part to increase global warming where i can. You’re wasting your time.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “The world is MUCH cooler today that a few million years ago.”

        Much cooler now than even a few thousand years ago. !

        • AndyG55 says:

          Heck , even cooler than just a 1000 or so years ago (MWP)

          Only just out of the COLDEST period in the current interglacial.

          Warming = GOOD

          Cooling = BAD !!

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Very true, but a few million years ago, people didn’t exist, and modern societies containing billions of people didn’t exist.

          A few million years ago, when it got too cold, animals could migrate south.

          That is not possible with a population of 7 billion people.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “A few million years ago, when it got too cold, animals could migrate south.”

          Yep, those northern countries are in for a world of problems.

          Gees VD, do you even read what you post ? DOH !!!!!!!!

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “Yep, those northern countries are in for a world of problems.” – AndyG55

          Food production is going to be a real problem as the grain belt of the U.S. and other nations reverts to desert.

          Perhaps you think that you can grow corn on the barren rock of the Canadian shield.

          Who knows, what delusions your mental illness provides you.

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        A trend from the triassic period would be useless in characterizing the modern climate in large part because all of the earth’s continents were part of one large super-continent – Pangaea. Ocean circulation, was different and there was no large land mass in the Antarctic on which glaciers could form.

        You might as well try and claim that your medical records from when you were 2 hours old are key to determining if you are dying of a gun shot wound when you are 90.

      • Snowleopard says:

        “A few million years ago, when it got too cold, animals could migrate south”.

        Sometimes they have the time, sometimes not. Or sometimes not enough make it to the warmth to sustain themselves. Siberian mammoths for a “recent” example.

    • Data Matters says:

      There seems to be a LOT of Cherry-Picking, when it comes to Debates about Climate Change.
      There is absolutely no Consensus about what Year we should use as Baseline. Should it be 1930? 1880? 1492?

  53. Dennis says:

    The Government has “Once Again” over fixed everything. Now we’re cooling too fast.

  54. Billy Liar says:

    Is it the start of the Fall Semester at the Union of Confused Scientists or perhaps a new intake of trainees at the Climate Science Rapid Response Team?

  55. Petty fogger says:

    Greetings! May I as a complete novice and as unwashed as they come please add my take to this discussion?
    Invoking “Consensus” as a valid argument or to buttress an argument has lost all validity in the discussion of Climate as soon as Climategate I was brought to light. It was apparent that one of the main thrusts of the emails was to, by any means, stifle alternate views than those of the ‘Warmists’. Climategate II a year or so later only affirmed what thinking people perceived; any fleeting possibility that there was any attempt at honesty in the Climate consensus community was dead on arrival. The fact that the Papal dog and polar bear show recently occurred with noted scientists who REFUSED to play ball were EXCLUDED , which, of course, insured that the all-important CONSENSUS was guaranteed.

    As a retired cop with almost 35 years of my life dedicated to solving riddles and ferreting out liars, the climatemonger arguments and the methods they are supported as framed by those with the most to gain from hysteria absolutely stinks. I think perhaps the smokiest gun in the this entire crime scene is the slickest ploy of all. By gradually backing away from first GOBAL COOLING to GLOBAL WARMING to the name that covers all bets: CLIMATE CHANGE!!! The newest boogie is a sure thing for those who need a Cause, no matter which way the wind blows, it is man-made (American man-made, of course) and it needs to be CONTROLLED.

    • Demetri says:

      For those in pursuit of climate answers may find some with the work of David Dilley of Global Oscillations Inc. Also this link has a fascinating revealing exchange between posters Konrad, a knowledgeable scientist and David Appell a science journal and believer of man-made climate change hysteric and defender of Mann’s hockey stick data array. Catch the exchange between them of the dT/dS equation the CO2 argument is based upon and don’t miss Konrad’s 8/15 11:29P and 9/3 1:25A remarks. Txs.

    • Frank True says:


    • Joe Parente says:

      OK, Pettyfogger. You say you’re a retired cop, I would say you were a detective at one time by the way you’re talking. So if I show you evidence that your “smokiest gun” is totally wrong and without factual or historical evidence, can I be assured that you’ll consider re-examining all the evidence and perhaps changing your mind? Assuming so, here goes:
      The term climate change goes back to at least a 1956 paper by physicist Gilbert Plass, “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change”. Climate change was the basic term used. The journal “Climate Change” first published in 1977 and the IPCC was formed in 1988. You do know what the CC in IPCC stands for, right?

      We actually have documented the first use of Global Warming… it was here, in the paper titled “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” by geochemist Wallace Broecker in 1977. Actually, until Broecker’s paper, the term used in geoscience circles was “inadvertent climate modification” because a consensus had not yet formed whether the particulate matter we were spewing into the atmosphere was going to offset the well-known CO2 warming effect.


      But don’t believe them, google the papers, they’re available online. See for yourself, don’t believe what liars tell you second hand.

      By the way, “global cooling” was already pretty much discounted and global warming was beginning to be the consensus by the time the infamous Time Magazine article came out, so it was already lagging the actual science.

      So what’s what’s that say about your “smokiest gun”?

  56. Psalmon says:

    The US Coast Guard has enough time to send one of our two functional ice breakers to the North Pole.

    The whole thing is a stunt. The article claims rapidly melting ice and the need to collect essential data, but don’t report any because buoys in the area up to 85 N are showing -10 deg C temperatures.

    Once again physics takes a vacation in the Arctic.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “send one of our two functional ice breakers to the North Pole”

      Hey? but why the ice-breaker.. there’s no ice up there….

      is there ? ??

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        Certainly nothing solid. Currently in the arctic, there is very little but floating slush and rubble ice.

        • AndyG55 says:


          then why the need for an ice breaker..


          keep your comments coming, child-mind !

          SO funny !! 🙂

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “then why the need for an ice breaker.” – AndyG55

          Because they have re-enforced steel hulls that are designed cutting through thin ice, and hence are capable of withstanding continuous battering by square meter sized slabs of broken ice.

          Poor Mentally Ill Andy.

        • rah says:

          Vendicar Decarian says:
          September 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm

          “then why the need for an ice breaker.” – AndyG55

          Because they have re-enforced steel hulls that are designed cutting through thin ice, and hence are capable of withstanding continuous battering by square meter sized slabs of broken ice.

          Poor Mentally Ill Andy.

          Ice breakers don’t go “through” the ice that needs to be broken. They ride on top of the ice sheet and crush down through it with their weight. Ice class ships, which aren’t ice breakers, have reinforced hulls to push through already broken ice chunks. You really need to know a little bit about what your talking about before you go disparaging people!

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “They ride on top of the ice sheet and crush down through it with their weight.” – Rah

          Yes they do. Do you think you are making any significant point.

          If so, what is it?

  57. DarkStarAZ says:

    Welp, time to sell the Prius and buy a Hummer. Wish these guys could make up their minds.

  58. Psalmon says:

    Proof the Arctic ice at the North Pole is melting at below -10 deg C. Real time buoy locations and temperatures.

  59. have no fear ISIS will do us in before global warning will

    • Southern Son says:

      Not if my lard lubed AR have a say, it wont! Heat of the barrel may increase atmospheric temperature locally though…..

    • AndyG55 says:


      it is the complacency and ignorance of the general EU politicians that will do the EU in. !!

      America will hopefully WAKE UP in time.

      What is happening in the EU is NOT a refugee issue.. its a planned infiltration.

      This will become evident in the not too distant future.

      Avoid the EU like the plague and tighten your borders if you can. !!

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        “What is happening in the EU is NOT a refugee issue.. its a planned infiltration.” – Mentally Ill Andy

      • Snowleopard says:

        “What is happening in the EU is NOT a refugee issue.. its a planned infiltration”.

        I would say it is both.

        Who destabilized the nations the refugees are coming from? Who financed and organized the revolutionaries, the terror groups and started wars? Or more important, who financed it? Follow the money.

        In order to accept a one world government, nations must be brought to such chaos that they capitulate.. Problem, reaction solution.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “Who destabilized the nations the refugees are coming from?: – Snowleopard

          Clearly it was the grey aliens and their Illuminati compatriots under the direction of Big Foot.

          “I would say it is both.” – Snowleopard

          I would say that you need a tinfoil cap.

        • Snowleopard says:

          “Clearly it was the grey aliens and their Illuminati compatriots under the direction of Big Foot”

          The Illuminati are extinct, I’m skeptical on grey aliens and an agnostic on Big Foot But my translation is that you are in total denial of who runs the world. Or for example, who’s errand boys edit O’Bombers teleprompter

          “I would say that you need a tinfoil cap.” — VD

          I’m all set there. Prefer a steel helmet though.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      “ISIS will do us in” – PaulT

      Poor Paul. Always shaking in his boots.

    • Snowleopard says:

      “have no fear ISIS will do us in before global warning will”

      Nah — They wouldn’t do that, where would they get their funding then? /sarc

      PS. Global warming did in a great many ancient cities at the beginning of this interglacial. Some of them have been found under the water. Likely we need not fear a repeat until the ice grows and then melts again.

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        You seem to be very concerned about money SnowLeopard.

        Money is the devils dung.

        Remember that.

        • Snowleopard says:

          Well some Christian sects assert that “The Devil” rules the world.

          I was taught that the LOVE of money was the root of all evil.

          Personally I think the desire for power over others is worse.

          That said, the world is what it is, not what I might like. It is certainly run by those who control (create from nothing) the money.

  60. Medical Entomologist says:

    according to most of the climatologists I work with we have just come out of a 30-40 year warm weather cycle and are entering a 30-40 year cold weather cycle. I also noticed in the text that was required in my Landscape Ecology class that all the cycles(30, 100, 500, 5000, 50000 yrs) had peaked around 2000 and we are entering the cold period of the cycle. This is a rare occurrence. I think I’ll get ready for the cold weather and think warm thoughts.

  61. Conservatives are f'ing stupid says:

    Yo – DB – its sea ice. If you don’t understand the difference from that and shelf/glacial ice, you’re a, well, a DB. Or a climate change denier. Which is pretty much the same thing.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Gotta luv the ever-present display of zero intellect from the rabid climate junkie. 🙂

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        Poor Andy. He is perpetually caught telling lies.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor VD.. wouldn’t know the truth if it kicked him in his b**ls !!

          Where have I lied..

          You have NOTHING because you ARE nothing !!

          An empty rhetoric.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          The truth according to Mentally Ill Andy…

          “What is happening in the EU is NOT a refugee issue.. its a planned infiltration.”

          Get psychiatric help immediately, boy.

        • Michael Jankowski says:

          You were caught lying about your name (countless times in the past) and lying about how there’s no sea ice extent prior to 1979. Why don’t you ever fess up?

  62. Chuckchi says:

    Check out the Navy/NOAA Joint Ice Center Records. They precede the NSIDC records and include airborne observations taken by the Navy prior to satellites

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Not much overflight of the arctic prior to the introduction of get engines.
      There is virtually no overflight of the high arctic even today – it is too dangerous.

      But there is a synthetic record.

      Here it is.

  63. Moors710 says:

    I have lived through the end of the world at least 10 times. I really do not believe another end of the world will make much difference.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      You are clearly very old.and unable to count higher than 10.

      I don’t know of any scientists who are predicting the end of the world.

      I do however, know that most scientists are anticipating massive damage due to the results of excess heat as the Globe Continues to warm.

      As an old man, you will be long dead as your grand children suffer the effects.

      • AndyG55 says:

        You are obvious very childish and unable to count to 5.

        As a child-mind, you are destine to be the dregs of society for a long time..

        Lattes all round for you and your boy friends 😉

        If you ever have any children, they will suffer from your inherited idiocy .

      • AndyG55 says:

        Poor VD..

        You do realise that in all your trolling rants,

        … haven’t posted ONE SINGLE BIT OF INFORMATION OR FACT..

        Truly pathetic… even for a low-end troll !

        Is your life really that sad ?

        • says:

          AndyG55, VD never does. He’s a paid troll. I see him posting on other sites as well…usually so much, one has to wonder if it’s not his full time “job”. I put job in quotation marks because he doesn’t actually do anything…however, he MUST get paid to do it.

  64. Jon Snowedin says:

    Winter is coming! Really it is – by 2030 we will have cooler temps but since the hoaxsters have changed the inconvenient lie of Global Warming to the convenient lie of Climate Change (how wonderful – no matter which way it goes you are always correct and we are always “Deniers”). Put your money where your mouth is – I say the Artic ice will be at near 1979 maximums by 2025 – what say you?

  65. David says:

    This is a fake story. Mr Obama says the world his warming and he wouldn’t lie, would he? All the people at the home agree with me.

  66. Always Reading says:

    “Nobel Prize winning climate experts” – error! error! error!
    there were no Nobel Prize winning climate scientists/experts. the IPCC as an organization & Al Gore won. the IPCC has issued a statement that clearly stated that the IPCC report authors cannot say that they won or were awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

    In a statement of 29 October 2012 the IPCC clarified that the “prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organisation, and not to any individual involved with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: ‘X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.'” It stated that it had not sent the certificates to “contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points.

    • rah says:

      Too bad nobody told that to “climate expert” Micheal Mann before he made the claim he was Nobel Prize winner in a US court of Law. It was really quite funny to see the IPCC which published his hockey stick as proof of global warming, deny he was a Nobel winner.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And it was NOT a Nobel prize..

      It was a Nobel Peace Price… now look at some of the people who have been awarded that.

      No way I would ever want to be counted amount that lot, thanks !!!

  67. Karl W. Schwab says:

    There will be melting and then cooling, more ice and then less ice. This has been going on since before man came on the scene. With all the crap mankind throws in the ocean no wonder the world is so polluted. Al Gore and his idiot friends are just plane wrong. Look at the geologic history of the region and you will also see that the earths poles have probably change several times in the past 250,000 years too. The earth is always changing and so is the weather. Just wait until there is another catastrophic Rocky Mountain Uplift event or an abnormally large meteor hit—————– then you will really have something to worry about.

  68. Man when i was growing up they said the world was going to go into ice age, twenty years later its global warming. tell ya what, we’ll die from liberalism way before either changes. want something to believe in? try your spouse, friends or hey maybe God. Al Gore? you should all be embarrassed.

    • aaforres says:

      Who is “they”? As the following actual research shows, the idea that climatologists said the earth was cooling in the 70s is a MYTH. (One that gets repeated ad nauseum on denialist forums like this. If “they” said it when you were growing up, “they” was an unreliable source you shouldn’t have been listening to anyway.

      • rah says:

        Yep, and I was living in La La land in the 70’s when it was going on and this stuff never was published either:

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          And you are still living in La La Land.

          How do you low IQ people manage to feed yourselves?

          Do you even know how to use a spoon?

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          No, Cronkite wasn’t lying. He was reporting on some unconfirmed comment that was allegedly made by a scientist (there were no climatologists in 1972), and taken out of context and who was most certainly commenting on cooling due to Sulfate and air pollution produced by the unscrubbed emissions of coal fired power plants.

          If you want the opinions of the Scientific community then you have to go to the scientific literature, which contains no such warnings.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Not to mention a real gentleman, Nigel Calder.

          Kukla warned President Nixon

          Those who rewrite the history of climate science to suit the man-made global warming hypothesis hate to be reminded that global cooling and the threat of a new ice age rang alarm bells in the 1960s and 1970s. In the Orwellian manner they try to airbrush out the distinguished experts involved, and to say it was just a scare story dreamed up by stupid reporters like me.

          No, we didn’t make it up. I was present in Rome in 1961 when global cooling was already the main concern at a conference of the World Meteorological Organization and Unesco (see the Unesco reference). The discussions were led by Hubert Lamb of the UK Met Office, who went on to found the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

          A persistent concern of Lamb and others was that the world might return to a Little Ice Age like that of 300 years ago. But the improving knowledge of glacial history, and especially the apparent brevity of warm interglacials, prompted anxiety about a full-blown ice age. George Kukla, together with Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened a conference in 1972 entitled “The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?”, and reported it in Science magazine.

          Kukla and Matthews alerted President Richard Nixon, and as a result the US Administration set up a Panel on the Present Interglacial involving the State Department and other agencies. None of us knew then that the mid-century cooling was about to be punctuated by a warming spell from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s….

          And I certainly remember all the articles since I was taking geology courses at the time .

      • Cliff Claven says:

        The false prophets of climate scientology have to deny history that conflicts with their faith, just as aaforres is doing above. Here is a history lesson.

        A seminal event for the season of popularity of global cooling was Stephen Schneider’s 1971 paper published in Science warning of a coming anthropogenic ice age entitled “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.” In it he said “although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

        While many other scientific papers had proposed global cooling before this, Schneider’s paper started a furor. Just months later in January 1972 a working conference of European and American investigators was convened at Brown University to discuss past and future changes in climate. The theme was “The Present Interglacial, How and When Will it End?” The scientists involved in that event were so concerned about the coming Ice Age, that they wrote President Nixon to warn him that “a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon. The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age.”

        Nixon got the message and convened the “Ad Hoc Panel On the End of the Interglacial” that met for two years. Their final report was published in August 1974 by the National Science Foundation and was actually quite moderate and balanced, but was clearly answering the question of the risk of global cooling, not global warming.

        In addition the National Science Foundation convened a “Climate Dynamics Group” in 1974, and later that year Nixon established a “Subcommittee on Climate Change.”

        Also by August 1974, the CIA was firmly convinced that there was a consensus on a coming ice age. To quote from their then secret Aug 1974 report, “The western world’s leading climatologists [aka “climate scientists”] have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change. . . . Scientists are confident that unless man is able to effectively modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada, the European part of the Soviet Union, and major areas in north China, will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow.”

        A recent BAMS paper that sets out to refute the myth that there was a global cooling scientific consensus actually confesses there was one in the beginning of the decade.

        “By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood. The first satellite records showed increasing snow and ice cover across the Northern Hemisphere from the late 1960s to the early 1970s. This trend was capped by unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North America in 1972 and 1973 (Kukla and Kukla 1974), which pushed the issue into the public consciousness (Gribbin 1975). The new data about global temperatures came amid growing concerns about world food supplies, triggering fears that a planetary cooling trend might threaten humanity’s ability to feed itself

        “J. Murray Mitchell showed as early as 1963 a multidecadal cooling since about 1940.”

        “At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966 Cesare Emiliani predicted that “a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years.”

        (All of the above excerpted from Peterson, Thomas C., William M. Connolley, and John Fleck. “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 89, no. 9 (September 1, 2008): 1325–37. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.)

        The Director of Climate Research at the now infamous University of East Anglia, Prof. Hubert Lamb, had the following to say as quoted on 9 Sep 1972 in the Windsor Star: “We are past the best of the inter-glacial period which happened between 7,000 and 3,000 years ago. Ever since then we have been on a downhill float regarding temperature. There may be a few upward fluctuations from time to time, but these are more than offset by the general downward trend. We are on a definite downhill course for the next two centuries.”

        The end result of all the attention was the 1977 decision to create what became the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, CO.

        Between 1974 and 1979, there were more than 25 feature articles in major magazines like Time, Newsweek, Fortune, U.S.News and World Report, and New Scientist; and hundreds of headline stories in major national papers including the New York Times and Washington Post, about a scientific consensus that an ice age was coming. However, by 1976, Stephen Schneider had changed his mind and was publishing about global warming, and papers on global warming were outpacing papers on global cooling.

        Was there a true scientific climate consensus for a coming ice age in the early 1970s, or was it just the illusion of consensus fed by a few attention-hungry scientists, power-grabbing politicians, and a media which loves to play up catastrophe? It is clear there was supporting evidence and strong opinions by reputable scientists on both sides of the debate, but not a true consensus either way. But the press and the politicians and even the CIA siezed on the cooling side and played it up for full apocalyptic effect. This is no different than the same illusion of consensus about anthropogenic global warming/climate change/climate disruption today. The temperature vector has been reversed, but all the same terrors are predicted.

        I have lived through ten different forecasts for how the world will end at the hand of man. Warmongering and doomsaying are surefire ways to gain power and wealth at the expense of the naive. There is not much of a living in predicting civilization’s continued rise and refinement.

        Thus ends the lesson

        • frank murray says:

          Any one who has spent any time at these academic summits knows they are a way for sexually frustrated idiots to party at 5-star resorts on someone else’s dime. These people are rude, arrogant, smelly, ignorant, condescending and cheep. The males and females hit on any other male or female without regard to harassment lawsuit potential. They load up at the lunch buffets like someone who has been fasting for a month, and wonder why the wine at the cash bar doesn’t cost $3.

          They are delusional and out touch with reality and you. They have never had a successful job in private enterprise, having been fired for incompetence, inability to show up on time or at all, rudeness, gross insubordination or not wanting to take a job that’s demeaning or gender stereotyped. And only they know what’s best for you.

        • aaforres denies known recorded history and in the same post calls this a denialist forum.

          That is quite an achievement in brevity but he is right about one thing: People shouldn’t have been listening to the doomsayer clowns then.

          I don’t know why he insists we should be listening to them now. Irrational worries about Santa are a possible explanation. His sons should have a talk with him.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Easy Frank, they are fun if you can get someone else to pay for it all. 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          “The males and females hit on any other male or female ”

          Never had any success 😦

        • Snowleopard says:

          @ Cliff Claven Thanks, and very well done.

          You saved me a lot of typing, and had more of the history at hand than I did.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

          Very True. What point do you think you are making?

      • It was in our so-called “science books”! You must be a kook to post such a stupid statement! We had to read Rachael Carson’s “Silent Spring” and write book reports as though she knew what she was talking about. Evan as a 15 year old high school student, I was pretty sure she was an idiot…. and my view of her is worst than it was then….. common sense is pretty rare among the smug little group that makes up stuff about things they observe but know little about….. our so-called “educated” (read that “brain-washed”) scientists.

      • AndyG55 says:

        The NW Passage was navigated in 1903 in a small wooden ship.

        Now they need nuclear powered ice breakers and pretend its actually opening up.

        So funny !!

      • Sort of like those telling us 2013 was going to be ice free. You may be on to something about unreliable sources.

      • Don't be an idiot says:

        Hey idiot aaforres…some of us were actually BORN before the 70’s and consequently were there. We remember what we were told, by supposed climate scientists, meteorologists and teachers from the time period. We were all doing to die icy deaths in a new Ice Age. Don’t try telling US we didn’t actually live through what we lived through. We were there. Where were you? Were you even a twinkle in your daddy’s eye yet?

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      “when i was growing up they said” – Timothy-couto

      Sorry boy, but you were reading the national enquirer when you were growing up.

      The scientific community made no such claim.

      Now experts in the scientific community is telling you that without dramatically reductions in CO2 production, there will be increasing levels of environmental and societal damage.

      You are presuming that what is printed in the National Enquirer is equivalent to what is printed in scientific journals.

      Only a fool would do that… Right?

  69. Don’t tell Al Gore it may send him off the deep end……oops too late….

  70. Troy says:

    I just would like to know what the “warmers” believe is normal. What is the normal amount of storms? Normal temperature? Normal snowfall? Normal rainfall? Normal ice?

    Science can agree the earth is quite old and has heated and cooled many times well before industrialization occurred. The sun along with earths precession, obliquity, and eccentricity are the drivers of climate fluctuation.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Typically when you see the word Normal being used, it is referring to the pre-industrial average.

      “I just would like to know ” – Troy

      Now you know.

      • Gail Combs says:

        “Typically when you see the word Normal being used, it is referring to the pre-industrial average.”

        Ok, WIKI says the first industrial revolution was ~ 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840.
        Here is the longest temperature record from the MET office UK, which is thought to be a pretty good indication of the world temperature.

        Back to WIKI

        The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1300[6] to about 1850,[7][8][9] although climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming…

        So Mr VD wants humankind to suffer through another Little Ice Age. Or, since he said pre-industrial he could mean the Medieval Warm Period which was warmer than now.

        Or maybe the much warmer Eemain

  71. Ron says:

    Please, no one tell the man made global warming crowd about continental drift and Pangaea. Cause then they will blame humans for that too.
    The Climate of Earth is not Static. That’s why we employee weathermen. Who by the way never admit when they guessed wrong what the weather will be tomorrow.
    As I stated in an earlier post the magnetic north pole is shifting at a faster rate (currently 39 miles a year ) in just the same direction as the ice is growing. Maybe humans are responsible for that too.

  72. bcsd says:

    From the sourced site of the graphic (National Snow and Ice Data Center), see “conditions in context” and “Aug 2015 compared to previous years” at posted last week. Though not disputing this post’s point (ice extent recently increased), isn’t better context the predominant trend line and not short-term peaks & valleys? (and yes, I’m one who concurs with a larger timeline view as others here reply, so yeah, “trend lines” and “short-term peaks & valleys” are pretty redonculous).

  73. EVEN IF man were responsible for climate change, the federal government isn’t allowed to do anything about it…prove me wrong and win $1 million!

  74. Lanceman says:

    But……GLOBAL WARMING!!! Democrats tell me I must PAY to save da earf!

  75. Jingle Dale says:

    There is an explanation for all of this. A few years back, when all the polar bears were dying off due to global warming/climate disruption/climate change/El Nino, or what have you, Al went to work in his garage lab with his simian assistant and invented a top secret ice replicator to solve the problem.

  76. dgbee says:

    CO2 makes up 0.036% of the atmosphere. That’s 336 parts per million. You get the point, I hope, or else you’re one of them, the Al Stone, er, Al Gore bunch.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      You are behind the times. CO2 levels are now at 400 ppmv.

      They are rising so rapidly that you can’t even keep track of where they are.

      What does that tell us about your level of knowledge?

  77. SAMURAI says:

    Arctic Ice Extents are sinusoidal and are primarily regulated by 30-yr AMO warm/cool cycles and, to a lesser extent, 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles and ENSO cycles.

    The current 30-yr AMO warm cycle started in 1994, peaked in 2007 and will switch to a 30-yr cool cycle around 2020.

    The PDO entered its 30-yr cool cycle in 2008 and Pacific Arctic ice has already started to recover on the Pacific side.

    The 2012 Arctic minimum was caused by one of the largest and longest Arctic cyclone in 50 years.

    CO2 has nothing to do with Arctic Ice Extents.

  78. says:

    “I hope y’all are right that 2012 was the low point, and it will be all growth and stabilization from here on out.”

    Why do so many people hope for the onset of the next glacial period? I never understood people who wanted bad things to happen.

    • aaforres says:

      Colorado! Interesting that you read “growth and stabilization” as “glaciation”. Also, have you heard of these logical fallacies: strawman fallacy (misrepresenting another’s argument) and ad hominem attack (attacking the person rather than their argument)? You are an expert at both!

      • rah says:

        Ha, then tell us aaforres exactly how much ice is exactly the right amount that should be left in the Arctic at the peak of the summer melt season?

        • aaforres says:

          Hi RAH! All of human recorded history, and much of its unrecorded history, has occurred in a relatively and unusually stable climate. We are the lucky beneficiaries of this completely natural cycle. We know this climate works for us. There is no guarantee that more extreme climates will work as well or at all for civilization. So, as a rule of thumb, I’d say keeping the ice at levels that prevent dramatic disruptions to ecosystems would be a good bet. Also, it saddens me to even think of the possibility that Santa’s workshop might sink in the coming decades. My sons will be devastated. But, anyway, I was merely responding to the suggestion that by saying I’d like arctic ice to stabilize I was somehow welcoming the next glacial age. Fluctuations from year to year are normal for the Holocene. And I’m fine with that. Rapid decline that suggests we are leaving the Holocene, well, as I said, I have kids. And if it turns out that it was actually US that hastened this climate shift, well, I’d hate to have to explain that to my kids. So, I am hoping the scientists are wrong and that all you thoroughly entertaining commentators on this blog are right!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Rapid decline that suggests we are leaving the Holocene,”

          OMG.. You want history…

          History tells us the only way we leave the Holocene is via an ICE AGE..

          The exact opposite of the alarmista meme. !!

          Or are you trying to claim that “global warming™” causes ice ages. !! DOH !!!!!!!!!

      • aaforres!

        In your response to me, you have selectively quoted from your own sentence. It reads:

        “… all growth and stabilization from here on out”

        That sounds like hope for the accumulation of more and more ice, with plateaus between. I am sure you and I agree that if such trend didn’t reverse it would lead to glaciation. You know that ice grows and recedes and there is no “stable state” so I do not assume that you meant:

        “… all growth—until stable and unchanging—from here on out.”

        Now, it is possible that you just used sloppy language and meant to say something else but then I do not know what it was. Please explain again what you hope for.

        I don’t know you. You may not be one of the many alarmists who are scared of warming and pray for cooling but I’m sure you know they exist in large numbers. I think they are ignorant about the history of the Earth and the human civilizations, crazy, or both. I’d be happy to hear you are not one of them.

        Second, if somebody writes a sentence like

        “I hope y’all are right that 2012 was the low point, and it will be all growth and stabilization from here on out.”

        he has not made any argument. He has expressed personal hopes and desires. If you disagree with my reading, please explain what was your argument in that sentence.

        Concerning your direct question, yes, I “have heard” of both fallacies but it doesn’t seem you are an expert at recognizing them. You’ve missed on both counts.

        P.S. Are you from the South? It is not otherwise important to me but I’m curious about the colloquial “y’all”. It could explain your preference for cooling if that is in fact what you hope for.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Are you from the South”

          Probably he is..

          Most alarmista tend to live in warmer climates, because they like the warmth. 🙂

        • aaforres says:

          Wow, Colorado. This is one of the more civil responses I’ve read on this thread. I appreciate it. To explain: I actually think that arctic ice is just one possible indicator of a warming trend that could *potentially* make life really shitty for humans. I don’t think any indicators on their own would be sufficient for a trustworthy prediction, but I do think that the picture, if you look at the whole thing, looks pretty bad. I wouldn’t call myself an alarmist, I would say that I am more like a smoker who is slowly coming to accept the evidence that smoking is bad for me, and trying to evaluate what that means for my future. It seems to me that there are a number of relevant questions to ask about climate change:
          1) Is the temperature of the planet growing warmer?
          2) If so, will continuing this warming trend be bad for humanity (and, if you are inclined to care, other species)?
          3) If it will be bad for humanity, can we stop it?
          4) If we can stop it, would it be worth the sacrifices involved to do so?
          Most of what I have read from reputable sources (and I read widely), suggests the answer to all of the above questions is YES. I am not getting my info from Al Gore, by the way. But I come into these discussions open to evidence on either side of any of these questions. In fact, the headline of this blog is what drew me in–because I was interested to see if there was credible evidence that the ice was growing which would support (though not prove) that the answer to 1 above is NO. What I found instead was an image constructed in a way to intentionally mislead people to the conclusion that ice is growing. The image’s manipulative intent was so galling that I felt the need to comment. Your interpretation of me as wishing an ice age on people seemed like an attempt to invalidate my actual reasoning (that the image was misleading) by attacking my motives, which would, yes, make it an ad hominem attack. But if you say it wasn’t so, I’ll believe you. I try to interpret people charitably. It’s hard on a forum where people are calling each other clowns, idiots, SOBs, etc. But anyway, if you’ve read this far, thanks! The good news is, I’m young enough that I’ll probably live to 2050. If so, I’ll know for sure whose predictions panned out.
          P.S. I am not from the south. But I think that ‘y’all’ as a plural pronoun makes a lot more sense than the ‘you guys’ that seems to be popular on the west coast where I am now, as it is fewer letters and doesn’t imply the audience is all male.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The ice HAS grown since 2012….. GET OVER IT and stop sooking !

          The Arctic sea ice level is still anomalously high compared to the rest of the Holocene.

          It is only by comparing it to levels as we climb out of the coldest period of the last 10,000 years that any issue is seen in the levels of Arctic sea ice.

          It is the use of just the period from the coldest point (late 1970’s) in the natural 60 or so year cycle to try to create a SCARE that is despicable and deceitful.

          I’m sorry, but all indicators are that the cycle has reached its turning point and Arctic sea ice will, unfortunately, start to expand again.

          I hope you live somewhere warm,… because over the next 20-30 years, I suspect you will wish that you did. !!

  79. m4rv1l says:

    This is a good example of data being used to promote an agenda. Yes the 2015 minimum is greater than 2012, but 2012 was the record low so far. The 2015 minimum is lower than 2014 and 2013. Funny they didn’t they chose those years to compare? Why didn’t they compare it to the 1981 to 2010 average? Fact is the minimum sea ice in 2015 has decreased for 3 years in a row, and is more than 2 standard deviations below the average (meaning about 1 in 44 chance that the decrease is due to random variation). The NW passage is opening up, species not normally found in arctic waters are migrating there. Did the writers of this article honestly not know these facts, or did they intentionally try to mislead people, or are they so blinded by their own belief that they actually convince themselves they are making sense?
    Time to face the facts. Climate change IS happening. One can debate the cause, though the evidence for human contribution is compelling, but to deny it is happening is just stupid.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Gees, SG, This topic really drags the worms out of the woodwork doesn’t it.

        Well done 😉

        Again, they totally ignore the longer term that shows that the current level of Arctic Sea Ice is actually anomalously HIGH compared to the rest of the Holocene.

        They choose a small rise out of the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years, and think that it actually means something..

        So hilarious, and sooo000 ignorant.. 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Again, they totally ignore the longer term that shows that the current level of Arctic Sea Ice is actually anomalously HIGH compared to the rest of the Holocene.”

          Very odd..

          No-one seems to want to argue this point ! 😉

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        My goodness, Stephen Goddard (not his real name) is silly.

        Here is the real ice extent for the Arctic that he claims is an increase.

        Liar.. Liar… Steve… Your pants are on fire.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Citing SkS.. you have outted yourself, child-mind.

          If there were a barrel with a hole in the bottom , you dig down another few metres to reach SkS.

    • And you have zero proof that it’s man-made and thous correctable.

    • rah says:


      What happened to cause Santas home to melt away in 1958? Was that man caused climate change too?

      ARCTIC OCEAN (July 30, 2015) The fast attack submarine USS Seawolf (SSN 21) surfaces through Arctic ice at the North Pole. Seawolf conducted routine Arctic operations. (U.S. Navy photo)

      USS Skate (SSN-578) made submarine history on 11 August 1958 when it became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.

    • aaforres says:

      Hi M4rvil. I appreciate your point about the misleading use of data. I tried to make a similar point above. And though people have called me names, and questioned my motives, as far as I can tell, no one has been able to explain how the singular fact that sea ice is today greater than it was in 2012, is at all relevant to any question that is worth debating.

      • Dave1billion says:

        Calculus. The first derivative.

        If you don’t have a sound understanding of the concept then you should bail now. The regular commenters here (I am but a sporadic one) are overwhelmingly scientifically well-informed people who make very sound arguments (at least about climate science).

      • AndyG55 says:

        “the singular fact that sea ice is today greater than it was in 2012, is at all relevant to any question that is worth debating”

        Yet it dragged out a whole heap of climate trolls from under their rocks and from their grandma’s basements, all at once….

        SG now knows the topic that REALLY STINGS the alarmista cretins.

        You obviously find it very INCONVENIENT 😉

        Expect a lot more of it. 🙂

        • aaforres says:

          Hi AndyG55. I am genuinely interested (not already convinced of an answer) in the question of how concerned I should be about AGW. I realize your answer to that question is “not at all”. And Steve Goddard’s answer to the question is “not at all”. I am not a troll, and I didn’t come to this site to pick a fight. I came because the title of the blog suggested a story that contradicted what I had heard before from several reputable sites. I was so taken aback by the blatant misuse of data that I felt compelled to comment. Dave1biliion claims that the regular commenters here are “scientifically well-informed people who make very sound arguments”. Setting aside the fact that there is no such thing as a “very sound” argument–arguments are either sound or they are not, it doesn’t come in degrees–I see little evidence that the regular commentators on this forum are skilled at anything other than name calling, ad hominem attacks, and snarky not-even-funny retorts that are irrelevant to the question of whether the climate is warming. So, what exactly is it that you think I find inconvenient? The fact that mean-spirited people like to say mean things on the internet? The fact that Steve Goddard likes to get a rise out of people who believe in AGW? If SG had actually presented evidence that the ice was recovering, I would have found that a relief (not an inconvenience). That he has presented no such evidence, but rather offered a misleading graphic parading as evidence…I find that annoying, and, frankly, immoral. But I don’t find it at all inconvenient. Having seen what I have seen, I have no doubt that you and he will offer a lot more bullshit like this “story”. I came to this site looking for actual evidence. I won’t that make that mistake again. Good luck with your crusade, man. I hope this all makes you happy.

        • Dave1billion says:

          So you don’t understand the concept of the first derivative and how it applies to the topic?

          When asked to demonstrate some basic understanding of the argument, you resort to semantics about the validity of “very sound”.


          You won’t be hearing from me any more. I gave you a chance to prove your technical (well, mathematical, but I assume you get the point) acumen so as to engage you on the merits of the argument.

          Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent. So I won’t be wasting any more keystrokes trying to see if you’re anything but a parrot/troll chimera.

      • Bodhisattva says:

        Since I cannot, for whatever reason (no reply button) reply to your longer, lower post I will reply to it through this one instead.

        You said:

        “I see little evidence that the regular commentators on this forum are skilled at anything other than name calling, ad hominem attacks, and snarky not-even-funny retorts that are irrelevant to the question of whether the climate is warming.”

        Apparently you’re confusing posts by Vendicar Decarian and his ilk with the ‘regular commentators on this forum’ who are better informed than he is. Yes, some of them are tired of him and do drop to his level and I agree with you they should not. But human nature is what it is – what you gonna do?

        You said:

        “I am genuinely interested (not already convinced of an answer) in the question of how concerned I should be about AGW.”

        Well, let’s put it this way. The argument climate alarmists are making is that a trace gas that went from about 270 parts per million to about 400 parts per million is exerting a dominant, controlling (but I repeat myself) force on weather, temperature and climate. Climate alarmists tend to NOT mention the role water vapor plays (dominant, controlling, but again, I repeat myself) in all this and they also tend to blatantly ignore, or obviously deny, any evidence that does not suit them.

        Let me put the level of CO2 in the atmosphere into terms that are easier for you to understand. I am hoping you’re proficient enough in math to follow me here:

        400 parts per million is the equivalent of 4 parts per 10,000. Just slide both decimals over 2 positions and you maintain the same ratio of one to the other. Similarly, 270 parts per million is 2.7 parts per 10,000. Now since 2.7 is not a whole number let’s use 3 to make this work – or you can truncate instead of round and use 2 if you like, it really doesn’t matter because the end conclusion should be just as obvious. Now imagine yourself at a game in Lambeau Field, Green Bay, Wisconsin. Their arch rival is in town to play the Packers. I don’t actually know who their arch rival is, but they’re there! And Green Bay fans are notorious for the support they give their team. So out of 10,000 seats (Lambeau actually holds more, but let’s go with that number to make the math work out much simpler in our example) only 3 were bought by fans of the rival team before the venue sold out.

        Now the first thing I want you to consider is that in a venue of 10,000 screaming fans, 3 that want THEIR voices to be heard aren’t going to have much luck. Even if they all pull out guns and start shooting, only a small section of the venue will be involved – many of the fans might not even notice. So even before we get to the question of ‘will adding 1 more fan make a significant difference’ we should be able to conclude that 3 fans in a stadium of 10,000 isn’t going to really exert a controlling/dominant influence. Just as 300 (or 270, or, for that matter, 400) parts per million will not.

        But there’s another thing to consider, even if that doesn’t convince you. Before this nonsense about humans assuming god-like powers and usurping the orders of magnitude natural forces that actually control our weather, temperature and climate started, kids in school were taught the truth: The misnamed “Greenhouse Effect” is caused not by any trace gas like Carbon Dioxide, but by WATER VAPOR, which is arguably a trace gas too, but it makes up around 3% of the atmosphere, as compared to the .04% that carbon dioxide does. And not only that, if you check into the ACTUAL science, learn about the infrared (heat) radiation bands and where water vapor affects them and where CO2 affects them you find water vapor absorbs all over the place, pretty much, with a few tiny gaps and it is in one of these tiny gaps where water vapor isn’t so strong that carbon dioxide is. Now alarmists try to fool you and suggest all the heat leaving the Earth does so through that very narrow gap in the absorbing power of water vapor, but it just isn’t so. And what they also don’t tell you is that the warmer the Earth does get, the more radiation will escape via other IR frequencies where CO2 simply doesn’t absorb at all!

        Finally, one obvious consequence of a warming Earth is more water vapor being evaporated from the oceans, lakes and streams, more water vapor in the atmosphere turning into clouds, more clouds reflecting more sunlight before it ever has a chance to warm the lower atmosphere and surface of the Earth – a natural feedback loop that is much stronger, proven BY ACTUAL SCIENCE, than alarmists are willing to admit/accept.

        There are more things I could mention, but that ought to get you started. Don’t take my word for it, but be careful – much of the information you can find was written by people who have a vested interest in scaring you into believing the nonsense – their fame, fortune and power depends on you making an emotional decision rather than a rational one – which is why they always try to present things in the scariest way possible – so you will react quickly, emotionally, without thinking. But their gloom and doom predictions ALWAYS turn out to be wrong. More/worse hurricanes? Wrong, exactly the opposite – the ACE index is at a 45 year low, and ACE measures the GLOBAL AVERAGE of hurricane strength year over year and it’s at a 45 year low. Not increasing. Arctic ice predicted to melt completely by sometime between 2012 and 2015 and yet it’s still there? Will it eventually melt to the point we get ice-free summers? Yeah, maybe, but what’s wrong with that? It won’t be the first time in Earth’s history the Arctic was ice free in the summer. Really, so much more I could go on and on, but this post is already too long as it is.

  80. rah says:

    1. You did not answer my question.
    2. Santa will be just fine. The chief elf has an Army of elves, has a sleigh faster than any other man made vehicle known complete with FLIR and super STOL capability. Has an intel network so extensive he knows if every single person in the world has been naughty or nice. And has a demonstrated stealth capability, along with and ability to ingress and egress ultra tight places without detection, other than some missing milk and cookies, and that puts the capabilities of best special operators in the world to shame.
    3. Personally would much prefer to coming out of the Holocene to seeing a new bout of glaciation. Cold will be much much worst for mankind and the natural world as we know it for most flora and fauna than a few degrees of warming if the other branches of science that study mankinds history are correct. Even the relatively short minimums when the earths temp dropped have had devastating effects on civilization. The Dark ages really were pretty dark for mankind and the climate had a great deal to do with it all.

    • You guys crack me up. And you’re both right, in the sense that it would be best to keep the climate as stable as we can. Not that I’m really sure we can do much about that, but a few degrees up or down will wreak havoc on all those custom bred and designed monocultures we all depend upon so heavily for food.

      • rah says:

        We’re one heck of a lot better off now with the plethora of hybrids available for many staple food crops than our ancestors ever had. The grass type crops, such as corn, wheat, and other grains have all had significant development of hybrids for varying climatic conditions as have certain beans, like soybeans. BTW Lambton County in SW Ontario produces a lot of field grown tomatoes, and quite a bit of those crops are sold in the NE US. Drive by the fields on the 401 pretty regularly and have bumped into Canadian drivers delivering that produce to grocery distribution centers in MA and NY.

        • True. It’s a benefit of our increasing taste for “heirloom” varieties and broader choices, too. We are producing more varieties to create consumer choice, which is good, and tasty. But I’m not sure about the production system. We are still depending for most of our food on plants intended to grow within a fairly narrow band of temperature and moisture (and moisture is the really big problem), and we are growing those plants in ways (vast farms using highly mechanized equipment) that are not really very flexible. Lets say for the sake of argument that we had a really extended drought in the American Midwest or in California, say for 80 years or so (which would not be unusual in the scheme of things). Would the American economy survive? Probably not. I personally don’t think that we will see a crisis of that kind any time soon, but something like that will happen eventually, because that’s how things work. I’m a lot less worried about global warming than I am about preserving water quality and maintaining diversified supplies and sources of food.

        • rah says:

          Farmers in southern Kentucky aren’t planting the same seed corn that the farmers in northern Missouri. Each are planting different hybrids that have proven to be what they judge to provide the best yields in the prevalent or expected conditions in their region. In fact many large farms plant different fields with different hybrids that does best in different conditions just to hedge their bets.

        • They do. Farmers use many varieties, but the range of variability that each variety can tolerate is not really very great. It’s a good thing that we have a good roster of strong varieties, but two of the plants mentioned here, corn and tomatoes, are both very sensitive to water. Both corn and tomatoes suffer dramatically if the weather turns out to be unstable during the growing season. Too dry at the beginning and you get withered plants. Too wet near harvest, and you get rot. All large scale agriculture depends on year on year stability of temperature and moisture. Also, you cannot grow anything at all if you have no water. What if you started to see high degrees of variability in precipitation year on year? Or if moisture distribution patterns change entirely for a decade or two? Can you shift varieties quickly enough to maintain food stability? When the Vikings arrived in North America, they found wild grapes and other plants growing in “Vinland” and found a temperate environment in parts of the Canadian Atlantic coast, places that are cold and wet today, and which essentially support an arctic plant community. That’s a pretty severe shift, probably greater than you could compensate for by changing varieties. At that same moment, you had Native urban societies in parts of the Midwest, which were struck by droughts (and perhaps later by flooding, when the weather suddenly turned wet again) during a warm and dry phase that lasted for several hundred years.

          Now of course, we have departed from the main thrust of this website, which is about people whistling through their navels about man-made global warming, but natural climate changes are real things and have happened in historical time. It’s a real threat. Are we prepared for that? I think the answer is no. Is the climate changing? It’s really hard to say, since our only good data only goes back a century or so at best, but I think something is happening, but we really don’t know what it is, because our theories are new, and because our data samples are too small. But to spend all of our efforts to either say that nothing is happening, or to jump up and down and insist that we are bringing the world to an end is just dumb.

        • John Louis Lassen Perry:

          … I think something is happening, but we really don’t know what it is …

          Reasonable people agree with that. Something is always happening. The world is never at standstill and most of the time we are behind in understanding what are the major coming threats.

          But to spend all of our efforts to either say that nothing is happening, or to jump up and down and insist that we are bringing the world to an end is just dumb.

          I agree but I don’t know of too many people who insist that “nothing is happening” and spend all of their efforts to say it. I’ve followed the CAGW argument for a long time and typically such characterization of the skeptical arguments comes from the alarmists, not from the skeptics themselves. The typical skeptical positions *) are:

          – In the absence of a proof of the CO2-based AGW the null hypothesis stands, i.e. observed warming and cooling is within the historical range of natural variability

          – The data is being cooked by the alarmist gatekeepers to exaggerate warming trends

          – The AGW hypothesis cannot be falsified because its proponents keep adding effects when AGW causes warming, cooling, drought, flood, North Atlantic warming, North Atlantic cooling, etc. so that no real world event remains that contradicts the theory

          – We should be focusing on real problems and spend our efforts and money on those instead of wasting billions on proving that AGW exists and trying to prevent it

          – Current “climate science” doesn’t belong in natural sciences but rather is a branch of “political science” because it’s subordinated to politics, uses political methods and is driven mainly by politically-motivated money, so arguing about atmospheric effects, etc. is a distraction because it is really a political fight (personally, I consider the individual positions on this point the main schism in the skeptical community)

          I have to go back to work so this list is by far not complete but it seems you overstated your criticism of the skeptical position in there. I would not go as far as to say you built and knocked down a strawman but I’m afraid that not much of what you ascribed to skeptics there is really the case.

          I agree with what I understand to be the main theme of your argument:

          Let’s focus and spend money and effort on real problems and threats. I’m afraid we are woefully unprepared for what nature can and will throw at us (not to mention what the self-declared enemies of our civilization will do even if nature remains merciful for a while).

          *) I don’t claim to know every publishing skeptic’s position and argument

        • Errata: … no real world event remains that contradicts the theory
          It should read:

          … no real world event remains that contradicts it

        • Mr. Wellington, good response, and I appreciate that you’re thoughtful, which seems lacking in much of this sort of discussion. And you’re right, I have overstated the positions of both sides here, though I have to admit that I am frustrated by the the extremes that often come up. Having worked as an archaeologist, I want to see explanations of real historically documented events explained in terms of these theories, otherwise, what are we talking about? Yet I find that, as we see here in a few instances, the debate is often unfortunately about “lib-tards” or people whose main reason for interest is that they hate Al Gore, or that they think that they will save the world through carbon credits. But I’m not sure that climate science is purely a political activity. Archaeology is really a study of economics, to a large extent. And at root, economics is about food production. Why does a society become larger and more powerful? What causes its decline? These are questions that have often turned out to have a major climate related component. And they raise the question of how can such situations be handled when they arise. So there is considerable interest in paleoclimate in archaeology and in environmental science generally, though the people who do it often avoid weighing in on the whole “global warming” debate. Does this “science” allow us to predict the likelihood of another “dust bowl” such as we saw in the 1930’s? Or allow us to take positive steps to prepare for any other similar, or possibly larger, disaster that will threaten our existence as a society? (Because such an event will happen, eventually.) Perhaps it might, if we had a thousand years of really decent data, but we don’t. Instead, we see people arguing about whether or not we should be looking at records from 1978 or 1982 or whatever, to establish a baseline. Does anybody think that that will make much difference, when we know that climate cycles appear to run over thousands of years? Such arguments are nothing but politics masquerading as science.

          My own background is in archaeology, as I said, and I initially studied processes of state formation, which appears to always involve the right combination of favorable, stable climate with an appropriate group of cultigens (which also let me to understand the catastrophic consequences of climate change), but to make a living, I also worked in logistics for consulting firms, some of whom dealt with oil and mineral exploitation firms that worked in the arctic (North Atlantic, mostly). Without exception, every sailor or geologist I know who has worked in the arctic says that navigation there has become easier over our collective working lives (the last 40 or 50 years or so), and that the climate has become warmer. I believe them, because their experience is first-hand. Now, does that mean that the Earth is warming up? Or does it mean that we are heading into a new, temporary warm period? Is it something we should be concerned about? I don’t know, and though I think I understand the science as well as any layman, I find that, more often than not, when I discuss this with people, I am met with either “your friends are wrong, the arctic is not really warming at all” or “see, this is totally the result of global warming, and humans are completely responsible”. And most of the “science” all of these people then spout is useless claptrap about how things “should” be or “norms” for which they have next to no evidence, when the most basic examination of the evidence shows that we actually know next nothing about any of this.

        • rah says:

          John Louis Lassen Perry

          This is late but I hope your around to answer. Have you looked into the type of grains the Vikings, I mean Leif Erickson’s band, grew on Greenland? From what I’ve read as things got colder Rye was the all they could get to harvest time and when that failed they gave up and moved out.

        • Gail Combs says:


          It was not Rye but barley that was grown by the Vikings.

          And I will agree with John Louis Lassen Perry, that a diversified genetics for our food base is a very good idea. That is the biggest problem I have with the genetically modified crops. (not the hybrids)

          This is an example of what I think John is trying to get across and a very good reason NOT to regulate the hobby farmer who breeds not only heirloom crops but also heirloom livestock and thereby guards diverse genetics.
          Purdue University:

          November 3, 2008
          Native birds might restock poultry industry’s genetic stock

          …..professor Bill Muir was part of an international research team that analyzed the genetic lines of commercial chickens used to produce meat and eggs around the world. Researchers found that commercial birds are missing more than half of the genetic diversity native to the species, possibly leaving them vulnerable to new diseases and raising questions about their long-term sustainability.

          “Just what is missing is hard to determine,” Muir said. “But recent concerns over avian flu point to the need to ensure that even rare traits, such as those associated with disease resistance, are not totally missing in commercial flocks.”

          He said it’s also important to preserve non-commercial breeds and wild birds for the purpose of safeguarding genetic diversity and that interbreeding additional species with commercial lines might help protect the industry….

          I intentionally am breeding hardy mongrels instead of pure breeds in my goat and sheep herds for this reason.

    • It’s a whole lot easier to grow crops when it’s warm then when it cold.

      • And much easier when it’s wet than when it’s dry. In fact, it all only works really well if it all stays within a pretty narrow range of conditions. Just ask the Akkadians, the Mayans, the Anasazi, the Cahokians, etc.

      • AndyG55 says:

        And when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is higher. 🙂

        • Or not, as the case may be. With the events above, historically known civilizational killing climate events, there is equivocal evidence of elevated CO2 at the time of the event. Plant stoma data from any of these periods show no particularly unusual fluctuation, CO2 calculated from Moburg temperature shows a spike in the 12th century, which might account for the Mayans and the Ansazi, but this finds no correlation with either Ice Dome cores or with plant stoma data. It would be interesting to see if one could find anything from plant phytolith data, showing changes in plant communities, but so far as I know, there are no data sets comprehensive enough to be useful. Everybody is out there struggling to extrapolate data from the last 30 or 40 years to explain processes that last for thousands of years that we really don’t know much about. We don’t really know what provokes the CO2 decline that precedes the onset of a glacial period. CO2 might also be an artifact of some sort of feedback mechanism we just don’t understand. The fact is that all of you climate mavens out there, whether for or against the whole global warming thing, are the scientific equivalent of a bunch of people playing “name that tune”. You’re all listening to 2 notes of a symphony and trying to guess the rest.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “We don’t really know what provokes the CO2 decline that precedes the onset of a glacial period.” – John Louis Lassen Perry

          There is no reliable data that suggests that such a relationship even exists.

          The temporal accuracy just isn’t there in the ice record.

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        And that is why the Sahara is the bread basket to the world.

        Plants, like people, don’t do well when it is hot. They have evolved for moderate climates.

        • Equatorial rainforest plants don’t do well when it’s hot? Nobody told them yet they evolved for moderate climates and should leave the tropics?

          Vendincar, you are either a disposable trainee at the Climate Science Rapid Response Team or a false flag troll out to discredit alarmists as complete idiots. Either way, get serious and stop messing with these people. They have power and money, they are vindictive, and you are doing your best to piss them off.

  81. Skylark says:

    The Sun determines our climate.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Solar output is down. Earth’s temperature is at record highs.

      Sorry boy. It ain’t the sun.

      • Don't be an idiot says:

        Your ability to ignore the obvious astounds me. I guess the Hummers we’re driving here are also causing Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn to heat up too. It’s amazing how influential we really are in the Grand Scheme of Things.

      • Gail Combs says:

        And you are not aware of the latest. The solar-notch delay theory. There is about an 11 year lag so the results of Cycle 24 will not be seen until about 2020.

        A bit of validation can be seen in this peer-reviewed paper. The ice cores from the Freemont Glacier show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming warm in the ten years starting around 1845. Naturally.

        An ice core removed from the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming provides evidence for abrupt climate change during the mid-1800s….

        At a depth of 152 m the refined age-depth profile shows good agreement (1736±10 A.D.) with the 14C age date (1729±95 A.D.). The δ18O profile of the Upper Fremont Glacier (UFG) ice core indicates a change in climate known as the Little Ice Age (LIA)….

        At this depth, the age-depth profile predicts an age of 1845 A.D. Results indicate the termination of the LIA was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures around 1845 A.D. and continuing to present day. Prediction limits (error bars) calculated for the profile ages are ±10 years (90% confidence level). Thus a conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the LIA climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10 years, suggesting the LIA termination in alpine regions of central North America may have occurred on a relatively short (decadal) timescale.

        Going back to the solar cycle activity in the decade before 1845, you can see a major increase in activity in cycle 8 beginning in October 1833

        And in further news from Royal Astronomical Society (RAS):

        “Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to ‘mini ice age’ levels: Sun driven by double dynamo.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 July 2015. LINK

    • AndyG55 says:

      Solar output is down since 2000, hence the pause, heading into cooling over the next 20-30 years or more.

      It was very HIGH during the latter part of the last century, hence the slight warming.
      Real solar scientists referred to the last half of last century as a “grand solar maximum”, now heading into a period of very low activity.

      Click to access lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf

      The Earth is NOT at record temperatures, it is actually only just above the coldest period of the whole last 10,000 years.

      Just more ignorant, empty LIES from the VD mental case.

      Get it treated dupe, its eating at what little mind you have left.

  82. s says:

    and then the asteroid struck
    and wiped out the planet

  83. s says:

    recommend the movie ‘being there’

  84. Richard says:

    But obama keep pushing his global warming crap and carbon footprint while flying air force one all over the place.

    What an idiot.

  85. Heinrich Schultz says:

    Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one. Some of the opinions expressed above suggest that some of the people posing these opinions are assholes too. Trying to figure out which is which is rather meaningless at this time and requires the short version of the Serenity Prayer. If you live in Buffalo or Boston then use the long version of the Serenity Prayer. Either way I say peace on all of you.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      You could try going to and seeing what the scientists are talking about.

      Is that too much effort for you?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Ahhh…. you mean the paid propaganda monkeys.

        The guys that manipulate the data to suit their baseless hypotheses.

        Those “scientists”… NOT !!!

  86. Htos1 says:

    Obviously caused by yuppies driving suv’s.

    • Htos1 says:

      or maybe….
      During the 26,500 year processional cycle of the Earth, the entire solar system rises above and falls below the galactic ecliptic, as you view the Milky Way edge on.
      As of the 2012 furor, we’ve entered the exact plane of the ecliptic at zero point “c”, along the sine wave of the solar procession, above and below the ecliptic.
      Now, no one knows what happens as we traverse this *HIGHLY* energized field, that contains hi energy beam like emissions from the center galactic black hole, and it is massive. We have NO idea how this will affect Newtonian physics, the sun, weather, the magnetic fields, tectonics, fauna and such as we embark on this 5000 year passage.
      All we know for sure is that it appears there were once advanced civilizations and a completely different planet in regards to O2 and gravity levels. An ice age also appears to have happened, extincted the (large)American fauna and generated endless legends of gods, dragons in the skies, and adventure.All around 10,000 years, or so, ago.
      Or, it could be humans oxidizing carbon and refining metals.

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        Sorry boy, the 26,500 year procession alters the orientation of the earth, and not it’s position in space. Anything that is going to impact the earth is going to still going to impact the earth irrespective of it’s orientation.

        You might as well try claiming that if someone shoots an arrow at you, you won’t be hit if you turn your back to it.

        My goodness you are ignorant.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I am sorry but you are mixing up the Milankovitch cycles

        with Nir Shaviv’s The Milky Way Galaxy’s Spiral Arms and Ice-Age Epochs and the Cosmic Ray Connection

        …A record of the long term variations of the galactic cosmic ray flux can be extracted from Iron meteorites. It was found in the present work that the cosmic ray flux varied periodically (with flux variations greater than a factor of 2.5) with an average period of 143 ± 10 Million years. This is consistent with the expected spiral arm crossing period and with the picture that the cosmic ray flux should be variable. The agreement is also with the correct phase. But this is not all.

        The main result of this research, is that the variations of the flux, as predicted from the galactic model and as observed from the Iron meteorites is in sync with the occurrence of ice-age epochs on Earth. The agreement is both in period and in phase: (1) The observed period of the occurrence of ice-age epochs on Earth is 145 ± 7 Myr (compared with 143 ± 10 Myrs for the Cosmic ray flux variations), (2) The mid point of the ice-age epochs is predicted to lag by 31 ± 8 Myr and observed to lag by 33 ± 20 Myr. This can be seen in the first figure.

        A second agreement is in the long term activity: On one hand there were no ice-age epochs observed on Earth between 1 and 2 billion years ago. On the other hand, it appears that the star formation rate in the Milky way was about 1/2 of its average between 1 billion and 2 billion year ago, while it was higher in the past 1 billion years, and between 2 to 3 billion years ago.

        Another point worth mentioning is that, unlike some articles which misquote me (or copy from a misquoting article), I don’t think we wont have an ice age coming in the coming few tens of millions of years. If this galactic-climate picture is correct (and you should judge yourself from the evidence, in particular by the paper in New Astronomy), it implies that we are at the end of a several 10 million year long “icehouse” epoch during which we have ice-ages come and go, and gradually over the next few millions of years, the severity of ice-ages should diminish, until they will disappear altogether. I wouldn’t buy real estate in Northern Canada just yet….

        • Htos1 says:

          Again, we have NO idea what will happen, plasma based discharges(which DO occur, and ARE producible in vacuum/near absolute zero) could reverse the magnetic fields “overnite”and it’s starting, destroying ecosystems, migrant fauna, bees(Hmmm),and ALL fauna dependent on the magnetic field. The last time this happened, evidence shows the Earth’s orbit slowed by five days(passing debris) and caused the oceans to “slosh” over the continents to over five miles in height(that’s a REALLY big tsunami). One more thing, my work “flies” through space to “what’s out there”, I know all about your arguments. We ARE going to find out, sooner rather than later..

  87. scolopede says:

    A few days ago I recommended people look at what has been said in the past by these people too, nice to see somebody do this. How can people trust what is said anymore about this with all the lies. I’m one to think, whatever the trend is, it’s not a problem for us to fix but to adapt to, not so doomish and gloomish. If it wasn’t made news, would people even notice or worry about it like they do(?) The planet has been through a lot more. Hey I’m all for cleaning up the environment, but these politicians and the UN are using this to scare people so they can take money from people and give to somebody else ..carbon taxes, spread the wealth. Nature doesn’t care, we do but nature doesn’t feel, it just goes. It’s real hard to believe the wild ocean level rise claims. Ice in the oceans that melts decreases in volume too. Find imagery or maps of the poles that aren’t distorted by map projections and refraction, it’s a lot of ice but relative to the ocean…, it doesn’t look like much, even considering ice thickness.

  88. DW1 says:

    Too bad the oceans aren’t rising. I’d love to see Al Gore’s $10M beach house flooded with seawater.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Wow, the oceans aren’t rising?

      The data plotted above, calls you a liar.

      So do I.

      • Htos1 says:

        No,,,you’re a liar, I’ve been watching a beachfront in Fernandina Florida daily since Dora in 1964. NOT AN INCH of rise. man, we’re gonna have to use deadly force against the progtards, like the black night in Monty Python skits.

  89. sailfishman says:

    This is all a lie. This article is complete hogwash. obama says global warming exists and we are all to blame for it…I believe him over the actual facts. Facts are nothing more than truths…something obama warned us about not listening to.

    • Fabuleesy says:

      Statistics can be used decieve the masses when used incorrectly. Only trust publications from peer reviewed journals with data that you can verify with a transparent calculation process. This is just a sensationalist blog. They want traffic and hype, that is all. P.S. Chemical Engineer

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Statistics can be used deceive the masses when used incorrectly”

        Well done.. you have just describe “climate science™ ” to a tee. !!

        Are you one of “the masses” or do you have a rational mind of your own ?

        You do know that peer review is a journalistic issue, not a scientific issue….. don’t you ?

        No, probably not..

        • Fabuleesy says:

          You do know that journalistic sources (peer reviewed) do not get published in science journals if they are untrusted sources (like a blog, where you can write any rubbish you feel like without proof). This is why engineers (like myself) and scientists do not use blogs when completing a design or completing research etc. We use peer reviewed scientific journals.

        • rah says:

          There is nothing wrong with peer review as long as the discipline also practices that scientific method including confirmation by replication of experiments or observations. Climate science, or at least the type practiced with government dollars backing it, relies almost exclusively on peer review and that group have developed a buddy system to get their garbage published. I say garbage because most of them won’t even provide the base data nor adequate information on methods so that their calculations can be can be replicated by a reader either! Now do you defend THAT?

        • Andy DC says:

          Peer review among those paid to “prove” a pretermined hypothesis is worse than useless. There are a lot of good scientists that have not bought into the hype and they are systematically excluded from the system. In other words 97% of those paid to say there is global warming say there is global warming. And 100% of those who think there is no global warming get no visits from the Government gravy train.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And engineer would NEVER accept the amount of data manipulation that goes on in climate science.. Are you a sanitation engineer perhaps?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Obama?? gees, go easy !!!

      next you’ll be quoting Wikipedia or SkS or something equally lewdicrus !! 😉

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      “obama says global warming exists” – fishman

      Obama is right.

  90. xminusone says:

    The Earth has existed for millions of years, Man, a miniscule fraction of that amount. To say Humanity’s momentary scrabbling on the Earth’s crust is affecting the planet’s climate is absurd and egotistical in the extreme. Nature is fluid, not static. Some see a few ebbs and flows and extrapolate from them all form of dire consequences that mean nothing. Weather assessment has improved greatly over the years, but is still an inexact science in terms of long range predictions. Short version: Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling predictions are a colossal hoax.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      The earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, not millions.

      Can’t you denialist Losers even get that right?

      • Snowleopard says:

        Yeah, so that’s 4500 million you pedantic nitpicker.

        Denalist, when referring to climate propaganda, is another name for realist.

  91. MICHAEL says:

    God 1 Atheists 0

  92. sword_of_truth says:

    This is blatant misrepresentation, cherry picked and hand boxed to present a LIE!

    How can you post this? Have you no shame?

    2012 was the lowest sea ice extent to date, so by definition any other figure is going for the moment to be higher than it…

    But! BOTH 2013 AND 2014 WERE HIGHER STILL THAN 2015.

    We lost ice again after the ‘recovery’. Why are you hiding that? Why??

    It’s still going down…

    Why do you feel the need to LIE LIE LIE LIE

    (I don’t usually SHOUT on the web, but LIARS make me angry)

    • AndyG55 says:

      “LIARS make me angry”

      you self hatred is duly noted. !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      “It’s still going down…”

      NO, its basically levelled out since about 2008, 2009.

      Next year will be interesting.

      Unfortunately, I think its going to continue its cycle and start to climb again.

      Warming = GOOD..

      Cooling = BAD.

      If you don’t believe than.. move to Siberia. 🙂

      • Fabuleesy says:

        LOL is this AndyG55 guy employed by the Steven Goddard to defend his bogus blog? I wish this kind of thing was illegal but I guess it isn’t. Get some shred of decency and make a respectable blog, one that will earn you popularity and cash without spreading a dangerous and harmful idea. Denial of the effects of climate change means abandoning any means to remedy our actions.

        • rah says:

          Fabuleesy says “Denial of the effects of climate change means abandoning any means to remedy our actions.”

          Exactly what effects? The hypothesis said temperatures of the lower troposphere would climb before surface temperatures.

          No warming trend nor predicted “hot spot” in the lower troposphere has been detected according to either UAH or RSS satellite data sets.

          End of story! Hypothesis falsified.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          Andy is just mentally ill. Has been for years. Schizophrenia I believe.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          I like this link by Rah

          It shows a 0.4’C rise in atmospheric temperature since 1979.

          Unfortunately the satellites being used by Spencer to produce that graph don’t and can’t measure global surface temperature.

          If they could, then the temperature rise would be a little higher.

          Currently global surface temperatures are 1.0’C higher than the pre-industrial norm.

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          I also like RAH’s second graphic.

          Note how well the observations (black line) correspond to the modeled temperature’s (yellow region).

          The Climate models are working very well indeed.

        • rah says:

          That’s not the IPCCs models moron.

        • AndyG55 says:

          If you think this blog is bogus, why are you wasting your time here ! 🙂

          It is obviously becoming VERY IMPORTANT to attract paid climate trolls in the number that this thread has. Well done SG 🙂

          You and your boyfriends are ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE to bring it down but flooding it with your worthless BS and climate propaganda.

          The truth is really starting to hurt your agenda isn’t it. ! 🙂 🙂

        • Fabuleesy says:

          I’m an engineer. We are scientific people. We don’t get distraught when data reveals something different than it did before. We adapt. And until the science and maths proves that climate change is not happening, and the slow demise of the Kiribati islands are explained by some other scientific data, I won’t be pushing this dangerous idea around.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The ONLY dangerous and harmful idea being floated here is that Carbon Dioxide is in any way a problem. Hopefully when the truth of the anti-CO2 agenda becomes apparent people like you and your VD mates will be so distraught you will lock yourselves in your padded basements and never be let out again.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “and the slow demise of the Kiribati islands ”

          Do some research if you want to PRETEND to be a engineer (sanitary engineer, is it ?).

          Most of the islands of Kirabati have actually increased in area.

          Gees.. low end ignorance displayed by the ignorant trolls, yet again !!!

          You seem to have adapted by becoming part of the Borg.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “We don’t get distraught when data reveals something different than it did before”

          You mean the 18+ year temperature pause, and the zero CO2 signature in the non-acceleration of sea level rise.

          And the ZERO PROOF of any actual abnormal climate.. becoming more benign, if anything.

          And you do seem very distraught that your SCAM is coming to an end.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You say you are an engineer.. Your link to your faceplant page is truly a joke.


          “I write as a form of therapy. It all started when one morning, I simply couldn’t get out of bed. I tried to fight my affliction and got as far as the bathroom. My willpower didn’t hold out and I soon returned to my bed, reeling. It was at that moment I realised my true aptitude and accepted my destiny. I was a writer. I was born to work in bed”

          From your avatar, I’d say that yes, you probably do most of your work in bed !!! !!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Not a faceplant page.. a gravatar page..

          samo !!

      • Vendicar Decarian says:

        “That’s not the IPCCs models moron.” – Rah

        The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.

        The IPCC produces no models Rah, but they do run them. Currently they are running CMP-5, the same model used in your graphic.

        Didn’t you know that? You can read, can’t you?

  93. AJ Virgo says:

    Can anyone confirm what “Median” is used because it should be the median for each September 1981 to 2010 or properly the day or at least the week being studied.
    Knowing the alarmists as we do, could it be simply the 1981 to 2010 median of all those years because if that is the case then the Summer melt will ALWAYS be far below median?

    I can accept that the NSIC will be true but what about the Greenland graphic?

  94. Gutpiler says:

    You guys are all full of crap. Global Warming-Climate Change-Climate Disruption: ALL are propaganda used to indoctrinate young skulls full of mush and ignorant people to believe that humans have destroyed the planet. The science is NOT settled and you cannot have a “consensus” in science: the data is the data and it can be manipulated to show ANY results the plotting decepticon wants. So more ice, less ice, more polar bears, less polar bears, growing ozone hole, shrinking ozone hole…The environment is cyclical and no matter how hard we try, humans can never destroy the planet. In fact, it is impossible to “waste” energy because energy can ONLY be transformed from one form into another…

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      Wow, Gutpiler is really a kook.

      Sorry, Kook. The science has been settled for the last 150 years.

      Go back to the dark era from whence you came.

      • Snowleopard says:

        In the last dark age, Science was so settled it was buried, and if you disagreed, so were you. (unless you got a bonfire)

        I see you “science is settled” folks ushering in a new dark age.

    • aaforres says:

      No one is worried that we will destroy the planet, Gutpiler. The planet will be fine. We are worried that we might make the planet inhospitable to humans. Are you saying that we can’t do ANYTHING to make the planet inhospitable to humans? A bold claim. (See, for counter evidence: existing nuclear arsenal.) With great power comes great responsibility.

    • Ottmar Edenhofer of the IPCC working group III admitted in an interview with Der Spiegel that Global Warming is not about saving the planet or closing the ozone hole. It’s about the redistribution of wealth. That’s all.

  95. luxmax says:

    So now that plans are being considered (or may already have occurred) to abandon certain Antarctic stations, the public should know the reason why. Arial re-supply is simply too costly and the sea ice has grown to such an extent that it is no longer possible to re-supply by ship. This inconvenient truth will only be further amplified by the upcoming sunspot predictions. Data indicates we may see another severe minimum from 2020 to 2030, with the near absence of sunspots. Historically this results in global severe cold weather as was evident in the 1700s when the Thames river in England froze solid. For global warming acolytes this is “awkward” to say the least.

    • Vendicar Decarian says:

      We may very well see another grand sunspot minimum during the next solar cycle peak, but then we experience a similar minimum every 11 years.

      Such minima are barely detectable in the Earth’s climate system.

      A grand minima will be no different, and it’s effects will be countered by the ongoing warming of the earth by CO2.

      What happens on the flip side of the grand minimum when the sun’s output increases on top of the CO2 enhanced warming that has been and will continue to be experienced during the minimum?

      • rah says:

        VD this cycles(cycle 24) max was the lowest observed since cycle 14 in 1906! It is also the ONLY cycle in the history of sun spot observation and recording in which the second peak was higher than the first. Get a little education troll. Start here:

        • Vendicar Decarian says:

          “VD this cycles(cycle 24) max was the lowest observed since cycle 14 in 1906!” – Rah

          And yet this year 2015 will come in as the warmest year ever recorded.

          I thought your thesis was that fewer sunspots means a cooler Earth.

          Your theory doesn’t seem to work very well.

        • AndyG55 says:

          2015 will ONLY be the highest in the GISS fabrication after much DATA FRAUD by Schmidt et al.
          It is a directive handed down to them that they have to meet.

          Reality is that it will be nowhere near the warmest even in the short period of reliable un-tampered data we have since satellite deployment.

          And if you want to go down the “satellites don’t measure the surface” route, just remember that ALL the climate models say that the atmosphere should warm faster than the surface.

          Anyway, the BLATANT MANIPULATION of the surface data by Schmidt et al is evident for all to see.

          The slight cooling trends in UAH USA48 and RSS over USA, match very closely to the slight cooling trends in USCRN and CLIMDIV (The only other data sets that attempt a wide even spread of untainted data). This verifies the data collation of UAH and RSS and shows that they produce a REALISTIC temperature series.

          GISS and any other data set using any part of Gavin’s unscientific fabrications are a MONUMENTAL FRAUD, and hopefully when this is over, he and his mates will be held to legal account.

          There is in fact, absolutely NO CO2 signature in the whole 36 years of satellite data, a fact which is very inconvenient for the anti-CO2 scammers.

        • rah says:

          “VD this cycles(cycle 24) max was the lowest observed since cycle 14 in 1906!” – Rah

          And yet this year 2015 will come in as the warmest year ever recorded.

          I thought your thesis was that fewer sunspots means a cooler Earth.

          Your theory doesn’t seem to work very well.
          It is not “my” hypothesis. Many other far more educated than I who study such things professionally believe that decreased solar activity leads to cooler temperatures on earth all other factors being equal. And now days solar activity is not just measured by the sunspot count but by many other measurements such as flux in various wavelenghts.
          Great to know that you are so in tuned with the fraudsters that you already know that 2015 will be declared the warmest year ever despite the fact it is not even in it’s 4th quarter yet! If such a declaration is made it will be based on incomplete and distorted data.

          About 20% of the stations shown will not report due to temporary problems or other reasons. Also data from some reporting stations will not be used and NOAA won’t explain why. Thus there will be swaths of the earths surface for which there is no reliable data. And yet NOAA will come up with something like this as they did July this year to make their claim it was the hottest month evah:

          But that isn’t enough to get the end result they seek. So they have been gradually changing the temperature record for over a decade to reflect a past which is cooler than they originally reported even as they extrapolate higher temperatures they report for the present.

          But they have a real problem. They don’t control the two best and longest running satellite temperature records. These satellites measure the temperatures at various levels in the atmosphere above us and not right at ground level. But there is no way there could be such a divergence between the satellite records and the ground surface temperatures over time. Further the data from these two different sets of temperature taking satellites agree closely with the data received from radiosonde weather balloons, while the surface temperature record does not.

          The area the satellites measure temperatures is from the troposphere up. The Troposphere is by far the largest portion of our atmosphere and where most water vapor, the number 1 green house gas and all other so called green has gases are most concentrated. The altitude of the lower boundary of troposphere varies. It starts where the atmosphere is not effected by the friction of the earths rotation. Thus the actual altitude of the bottom margin varies from a few meters above the earths surface in flat areas mostly devoid of vegetation up to two Kilometers in mountainous areas.

          The troposphere goes up to the stratosphere (In between is minor layer where the two mix called the Tropopause). In the troposphere temperatures decline as you gain altitude. In the Stratosphere temperatures rise as you gain altitude. This difference is what defines the boundary between those two layers of our atmosphere.

          The hypothesis of human caused global warming states that the initial warming caused by CO2 will first show up in the lower troposphere. That is where the temperatures shown in the satellite record above are being measured. Notice no appreciable warming. No signature at all that CO2 is causing warming. The fraudsters only control NASA’s GISS satellite network and not the RSS or UAH satellite records shown above. So they have no control over what the RSS and UAH report and it is just killing them. So, ignoring the FACT that the global warming hypothesis requires that a CO2 signature of warming will first show up as a hot spot in the lower troposphere they are doing their very best to change the surface temperature records and current data to correspond nearly exactly with the rise in atmospheric CO2 in order to try and sell the scam to an ignorant public and people like you.

          Now on to another subject. I happen to have title to a large toll bridge I would be willing to sell to you cheap. I’m sure you and a couple others here will be interested.

        • rah says:

          BTW Colorado. My vocabulary was always above grade level but my spelling always sucked. I did ace English Comp, and English Lit 200 level classes back in the days when compositions were generated without the aid of a computer. So if I put my mind to it I can be proper. But to be quite frank, I just don’t really bother with it that much anymore except when I have to. Perhaps because I write some things when sleep deprived and other times when I have a Jack & Coke sitting besides me. But I guess the bottom line is that the older I get the less I care what other people think about me.

          Right now there is one composition I’m working on that I do have to be careful with. I was asked to write a memo on a problem I have perceived in the training of new drivers at the company I drive for. In the past there have been several times I have been rather critical of how some in management express their points, or perhaps more accurately, how they have failed to clearly express themselves in some of the documents they’ve produced. So I’m hell bent on showing them how it’s done while at the same time introducing them to the military format for problem solving which they apparently are not familiar with.

          I have a younger brother that can’t write at even the 9th grade level. But he is an excellent business man and great organizer and continues to do a great job running our families business.

      • Donna K. Becker says:

        I always think that those who don’t know the difference between “it’s” (it is) and “its” (possessive) are not credible. I might add that Dalton and Maunder minima do not occur every 11 years.

        • To base ones judgment as to the credibility of a posters statement on the proper or improper use of “it’s, it’s or go to hell” seems to me to be unreasonable as many factors may impinge on that usage.

        • David A says:

          Discerning the proper placement of a comma, dose not account for your climate science coma.

        • rah says:

          FDR even made words up when editing diplomatic/military documents.

        • Donna K. Becker says:

          Was FDR’s purpose to change the meaning of the documents, was he trying to be facetious by making up words, or could he have been confused? Without having read those documents he edited, I simply don’t know.

        • Donna K. Becker says:

          Inattention to detail is the issue here. In addition, one could say that lack of comprehension of such simple principles might reflect other shortcomings.

        • rah says:

          FDRs intention was to change the meaning of a paragraph in a document that was to state the US position on future war objectives in Europe. This was shortly after the US had entered WW II officially as a combatant.

          Just off the top of my head. FDR at that point was leery of sending US troops to the Mediterranean initially. He did not wish to be seen as furthering the UKs colonial hold anywhere including in the Mediterranean region.

          George Marshal and the other Service chiefs had come up with a paper stating the way they thought the war should be conducted. In that paper they agreed to assist the British in Mediterranean. FDR inserted the “word” “Navaly” in the key sentence to make the British understand that was the only way he was willing to assist them at that time.

          Later of course FDR changed his mind since he HAD to get US forces fighting against the Nazis somewhere. It turned out, as the Brits and Churchill knew from the beginning, that the reality of the available military means the US had and the potential targets ended up making “Torch” the invasion of N. Africa FDRs only real option for getting US forces into the fight in 1942.

          New words are made up and accepted into our language frequently. Try to find the definition of “Homophobia” in a pre 1970 dictionary. Try to find the words “racism” or “racist” in a pre 1900 dictionary. You won’t find them.

        • Donna K. Becker says:

          Thanks for the history lesson!

        • Donna, I try to spell correctly and I notice a lot of errors but English spelling is a complex matter in general and deceptive in particular, like when to use an apostrophe. To foreign students it’s especially baffling and its competing use in contractions and possessives can mislead a logically-minded writer to the above error. It would actually be quite consistent with the possessive spelling like in “Donna’s comment” to also write “it’s content” in the meaning of “the content of it” , would it not?

          This misspelling has a famous history. Jacob Shallus wrote on his parchment in Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution:

          “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.”

          Now, I would forgive Vending Cart his spelling errors but the real problem is his moronic argumentation. Lunacy is not worth reading even if spelled right.

          On the other hand, rah, for example, uses offhand spellings regularly but I rarely fail to read what he writes.

        • Donna K. Becker says:

          The rules for apostrophe use are surprisingly simple. I admit, though, that the English language, in general, is quite complex. If teachers–at all levels, including ESL– were cognizant of correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation, I think that communication at all levels would be enhanced.

        • Donna K. Becker says:

          I do agree that lunacy is not worth reading. However, those who make substantial errors of syntax, grammar, spelling, and punctuation are less likely to pay attention to details, or at least that they are unfamiliar with basic language rules. I do wish to reiterate, however, that apostrophe rules generally are quite simple. Correctness does enhance comprehension, after all.

        • No doubt about comprehension or general attention to detail, Donna.

          I also agree that the current apostrophe usage rules are fairly simple but they are, after all, just arbitrary rules to be learned. They have also evolved and changed since we borrowed the apostrophe from the French.

          I was just pointing out why this specific misuse may occur because of a conflict between the rule and the visual language sense of a writer. Among possessive pronouns, ”whose” is even more suggestive. A child thinking of something belonging to “who” may be misled to write ”who’s” just like she would write Roo’s or Winnie-the-Pooh’s rather than something that spells like Goo-Goose from Dr. Seuss.

          And if she spells “whose” right in the middle of the night, how about Cindy Lou Who’s tale of half asnooze falling for old Grinch’s ruse?

  96. John says:

    You can’t gain “multi-year ice” over 3 years.. Neither can you establish a pattern without extensive and risky extrapolation based on 2 data points. Sea ice is falling, arctic is melting, it will be fun whatever the case – no need to not follow evidence!

  97. Bayron Botkin says:

    I am a constantly looking for information to disprove those who want the government to in and controlling every aspect of our lives. Help me respond to this;
    “Arctic sea ice decline” on @Wikipedia:

    • rah says:

      Fighting disinformation on climate or weather at wikipdia is a losing proposition. Many have tried and failed to make their changes stick.

  98. Neobiognosis says:

    Er, hasn’t the ice cover shrunk since last year?

  99. Mr. Actually-read-the-map says:

    Notice how the map has the median ice level for 1981 -2010 and the 2015 levels don’t extend beyond that. The author is deliberately misrepresenting what this map shows.

  100. Mike Allen says:

    What is fascinating is that so far the persons challenging the theory of global warming can only point to anomalies in the data, however, if you look at the time series, the variability falls within the region of error for a model that predicts a consistent declining trend of ice in the arctic and antarctic. I am a scientist, right now hard to view these criticisms as anything disputing the models accepted by the professional societies of scientists across the AMS, NAS, NOAA, or IMS. I am much reminded of those challenging the theory that cigarette smoking caused cancer and heart disease.

    • Global sea ice area is the same as 30 years ago. Your model is BS.

      • Random Schmoe says:

        “Global sea ice area is the same as 30 years ago.” Are you absolutely sure about that statement? Which charts are you using?

    • andersm0 says:

      Mike, whatever credibility your points may have had were completely destroyed the moment you dragged out the tobacco argument. Frankly, it pisses me off every time I see it. First, tobacco and climate have nothing in common other than being contentious matters relying on science for resolution. The tobacco debate was bitter and rancorous, but why stop there?

      If you were honest, you’d look at the whole picture rather than truncating at the point where it best (and falsely) serves your purpose. For in fact, it was the full and open debate that let the public learn about the health impact of smoking for themselves. And it happened with data, challenged, disputed and, in the end, irrefutable. Science won the day because of data, repeatable and reproducible. If anyone has claim to the tobacco argument it is the climate skeptics. We’d love to have everything put into the public eye, but the AGW believers say the science is settled and when the skeptics present unsettling science, they’re shut down with personal attacks. And open debate? Nope, the AGW side refuses. Why is that Mike? Something to hide?

    • Scott Sinnock says:

      Most smokers do NOT get lung cancer. So what is the “proven” cause, except a statistical link.

      • andersm0 says:

        Scott, that’s true. Nonetheless, smoking increases the risk of several lung related maladies. By direct cause and effect in some cases and in others, synergistically with other exposures. Anyway, that’s an aside from the point I was making, which is that all issues affecting the public need every side of the arguments heard, not just one. It’s the bedrock of good science and it’s how the public is best served. Solid science is not afraid of challenge.

    • Richard Feynman says:

      What should we teach people about science? “I think we should teach them wonders and that the purpose of knowledge is to appreciate wonders even more.” What is understanding? “Test it this way: You say, ‘Without using the new word which you have just learned, try to rephrase what you have just learned in your own language.’ [If] you cannot [then] you learned nothing except the definition…. To learn a mystic formula for answering questions is very bad.” What is the first principle that must guide a scientist? “You must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool…. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong…. One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory … you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make [any] argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.” What is unique about science? “Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation…. As a matter of fact I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

  101. Bernal says:

    What motivates a creature like Vidalia Dodecaphone? She kind of reminds me of Fanny, an obsessive commenter over at Judy Curry. Same obsession with decorative elements.
    V should remind herself, back off the keyboard when under rectal enfilade. You are hitting your head on the keyboard then expanding on your nonsense in a concussed state. Stop doing that!
    Everything is so much better when the pain stops.
    So run along now. You’ve made Steve very happy. All he said is Arctic ice is up over the past few years and got One Million comments.

  102. Billy Liar says:

    Well, the raving loonies have obviously gone all-in on Arctic ice. You can practically smell the desperation.

    I think they have been inspired by Professor Peter Wadhams to back up his ‘Arctic ice will all be gone by 2015’ prediction. They could, of course, be associates of sea ice expert Paul Beckwith – buddies from the Sierra Club Canada.

  103. Eliza says:

    Obviously these postings by SG are having a effect on Mainstream AGW and its funding (funders beginning to ask questions). Expect all out attacks on this site from the Team. The truth always wins long term so AGW is dying and so is the teams funding

    • AndyG55 says:

      Yep , This topic seems to particular STING them.

      Increased Arctic sea ice in the lead up to the Paris boondoggle will be very inconvenient for them.

      They will attempt to swamp the forum with their propaganda BS.. much to SG’s delight 🙂

      meanwhile Arctic sea ice seems to have bottomed out..

      Wouldn’t it be hilarious to watch the worms scurry if that red line start climbing up to near the yellow, black and mustard coloured lines. 🙂

      The AMO is turning..

      Popcorn time for sure !

      • Alex Richardson says:

        Looking at this graph you can see that in the ice is showing a pattern of increasing and then decreasing, 2009 7, 2010 is lower, 2011 and 2012 even lower, 2013 it then increases 2014 then roughly the same followed again by a dip this year. Now you say that the red line start climbing while yes this is possible looking at the data such rises are common place be 2013, day 242 has an increases as does 2011 around day 243, however all other years shown on this graph still continue to decline until around day 255 if not later. However still following the trend shown in this some what limited graph the ice would coverage would be less next year. It also worth noting that this graph does not mention ice thickness.

      • Alex Richardson says:

        Not to mention the poster is not even commenting on the 1980-2010 median

  104. Random Schmoe says:

    This kind of lazy representation of science seems to have a familiar quality to it. Is Steven Goddard a moniker for Kent Hovind or James Inhofe?