Paris Climate Criminals Ignore Record Arctic Ice Growth

Climate fraudster Al Gore solemnly told the Nobel Committee that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2014

The Nobel Laureate repeated his brainless nonsense in 2009.


Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

Instead of an ice-free Arctic, we just had the shortest melt season on record – followed by record sea ice growth. Arctic sea ice extent is the highest for the date since at least 2004.


Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut


Criminals at the New York Times and Guardian told us recently that Greenland is melting much faster than previously feared. In fact, Greenland’s surface is gaining record amounts of ice, with 250 billion tons of new ice over the last three months.


Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Temperatures in the center of the Greenland ice sheet never got above -5.9C this year, and averaged -29.7C so far this year. Last year’s maximum temperature was -4.0C with an average temperature of -26.9C. The last time the center of the Greenland ice sheet got above freezing was July 11, 2012 – when temperatures edged up just barely above freezing for six hours.

Meanwhile, the climate criminals in Paris continue their massive fraud – pretending that the climate is falling apart and that they are doing something to stop it.

About stevengoddard

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

105 Responses to Paris Climate Criminals Ignore Record Arctic Ice Growth

  1. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, the current Arctic sea ice extent is nearly 2 standard deviations below the mean. See it here:

    The current level is essentially the same as it was during this month in 2012, which was the record low year. So your claim that there is record Arctic ice growth is rubbish.

    • What Martin is trying got say is that Arctic sea ice has been in the normal range all year

      • Martin Smith says:

        Thank you for posting the graph, Steven, although you apparently chose to post an old version. The new version shows the current level nearly at the green dash line of 2012. Is this normal? You are saying that 2 standard deviations from the mean is normal. No one who understands the basics of statistics would call that normal.I suggest you withdraw your remark, lest you should be seen as ignorant.

        • skeohane says:

          In manufacturing, anything within 3 S.D.s is considered ‘normal’.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Yes, 2.5 standard deviations is considered a very tight limit and 3 sd is considered normal. However the useless paris-ites wouldn’t have any knowledge of the real world.

        • Gonzo says:

          Marty the graph Steven puts up is actually the longer term data. So in effect it reflects Arctic sea ice very well from a historical purpose. The new data which show ice hugging the coastal areas which you’re in love with is only a few years old. From my perspective I think the older versions is more indicative of the actual “polar ice “cap”.

        • Ernest Bush says:

          I find it hard to believe that you do not know that the above graph is published by NSIDC, an affiliate of NOAA from Colorado State University. That organization put the two standard deviation bar on the chart, which is in accordance with standards. NSIDC has no affiliation with the Danish Meteorological Institute, the source of Steven’s original chart. That chart is still being maintained along with a newer chart that includes ice along coastlines. Both of these charts are modern by your definition.

          Using the chart you have claimed is the one that really should be used from DMI, the ice extent line for 2015 sits right on top of the 2014 and 2013 lines currently. The 2012 line is close by at this time of the year. It is admitted by NOAA that the breakup causing the 2012 summer outlier was a result of a change in wind patterns and has nothing to do with Arctic temperatures.

          All the arguing about ice here is over a ten percent difference between now and an arbitrary 1979 figure. Ninety percent or greater of the ice that was there in 1979 still appears regularly year round. This argument is similar to the one concerning global warming. All of the arguments have been about less than one-degree of warming over 120 years. It was the end of a mini ice age. There is no reason to panic and probably no reason to get concerned.

          All of the arguments you bring up here are BS, Mr. Smith. The CAGW lie was invented by people who lust after money and power and see a chance to cash in and, perhaps, install a totalitarian regime to finish stealing wealth from everybody else on this planet. You place yourself squarely on the side of a bunch of robber barons and their minions with all these useless arguments.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The mean is based on the “low” part of the AMO. It is meaningless.

          Arctic sea ice is almost EXACTLY where it is expected to be for the current position of the AMO. Starting to climb gradually from the low point, because the AMO has just started to drop.

          There is ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE in the current Arctic sea ice level.

        • gator69 says:

          Why did they mask coastal zones?

          False ice concentrations are reported due to weather and land contamination.

          But since that metric failed them, they moved the goalposts once again, to where they found enough ambiguity to set up a new game.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I suggest you withdraw your remark, lest you should be seen as ignorant.”

          You should apply that to yourself, you ignorant little goreboy.

          That way we would never hear from you again.

          Your ABJECT IGNORANCE is MANIFEST in every one of your postings.

          It is obvious that it is YOU that doesn’t understand the basics of statistics.

          Or anything else for that matter…… especially not to do with climate.

        • Martin, could we see the entirety of this Graph??

          Not just a small section…

          Check the responses out for this BoZo today..


      • AndyG55 says:

        Lets have a look at the AMO and where the mean in the NSIDC graph is based on.

        You can see the light blue shaded area.. That is where the mean and deviation are based on. The Blue dot is approximately where we are now.

        As anyone can see, the Arctic sea ice level is almost exactly where it should be for the current position of the AMO.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Now let’s look at Marty the goreboy’s dmi graph which uses the period 1979-2000 for its mean

          And compare it to the AMO graph, see where that mean is coming from.

          You can see immediately the absolute and utter stupidity of using the mean from Marty’s dmi graph as any sort of indicator. Of course the current Arctic sea ice level is outside the 1sd margin…. I’m actually surprised that it isn’t much further outside.

          The Arctic sea ice level is doing JUST FINE !!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Actually, the more you look at that AMO graph above, its actually quite amazing that the current sea ice level is on the edge of 1sd from the 1979-2000 mean..

          According to our relative position in the AMO , it should be well outside.

          Arctic sea ice is doing more than just fine. !!!!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Yes, Andy the poor little Gorebot has no idea what heat capacity is or what it means in relation to sea ice. I bet he doesn’t even know how much of the ice is above and below the waterline.

    • Paul Clark says:

      Depends if you include coastal areas. Without these coastal areas it’s (looks like) record growth.

      • Martin Smith says:

        Paul, why would you leave out coastal areas? Why not leave out the middle then too?

        • Paul Clark says:

          They’re both useful. And leaving out the middle would be useful too. Coastal areas often affected by local conditions. Also there’s a different % threshold for them. But at the end of the day, none of floating sea ice is a good measure of global warming, being more influenced by ocean cycles etc, not CO2.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Paul, everyone who studies the system disagrees with you, so why should agree with you?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Because it is the way DMI has done it for ages. It is CONSISTENT.

          You just cannot accept it because it shows that, using this consistent, longer term metric, current sea ice is now more than any amount for going back to 2005.

          Get used to REAL DATA , little Goreboy, because it is all showing the world what a SCAM AGW really is… and there is NOTHING that your empty-headed rhetoric can do about it.

        • I don’t disagree with Paul… anyone else ??

          Arctic Sea Ice Extent in particular is susceptible to Ocean Currents and WEATHER on a daily, weekly basis.. as a percentage.. Arctic Sea Ice Mass today is about 5% less (ie: barely noticeable) than the 30 year “Average”..

          30 years is not much time.. much evidence shows lots a Ice Growth leading up to the Base Year Used 1979.

          Check the responses out for this BoZo today..

        • AndyG55 says:

          I must say that it will be quite hilarious to watch these gullible twits over the next few years as global temperatures start to ease off.🙂

          And its all there on the internet for everyone to look back on and remember their own stupidity.🙂

          What will poor little Marty do when even Gavin etal cannot maintain the warmth.

          Crawl back into Al Gore’s crevasse where he came from, is my guess.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And let’s not forget that that so called “mean” is based on a short 30 odd year period of the whole upward leg of the AMO, a period that started when the Arctic sea ice was abnormally high. The mean is meaningless.

      Even now the Arctic sea ice level is hugely above that for most of the first 3/4 of the Holcene, when there were no SUV, and only sparse wood powered heating. During that period it was regular for there to be zero summer sea ice..

      The main reason there is currently SO MUCH arctic sea ice is that global temperature is only just a small amount above the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years.

      Getting any of the Arctic worriers to actually admit to this REALITY is never going to happen though. They don’t “do” reality. !!

  2. Arctic sea ice doesn’t matter. Global sea ice matters. It’s not changing:

    • Martin Smith says:

      Morgan, Arctic sea ice does matter, because it affects the albedo of the Arctic ocean. I explained this to you yesterday.

      • Yes, because the albedo is very important in polar areas where the sun never goes 23 degrees above the horizon, especially since polar regions occupy 2% of earth’s surface.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Morgan, your remark reveals an extreme ignorance of orbital mechanics.

        • Ha ha ha ha you just made me spill my morning beer.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Morning beer. Says a lot about you.

        • Hey Marty. Orbital mechanics is all about rockets. I think you meant celestial mechanics, but that has nothing to do with it either. Anyway, thanks for the entertainment.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The albedo of Arctic sea ice changes only based on day-of-year. Albedo starts high at 0.82, stays steady at 0.82 until May, decreases through the summer to a low of 0.46, then rises again to 0.82 until about September, then remains at 0.82 until the end of December. This is from Dr Curry’s measured data from the Arctic.

          1. Albedo of sea ice does NOT change with latitude.

          2. Albedo of open ocean changes with every HOUR of every day as the solar elevation angle changes each minute. Specifically, open ocean albedo does NOT change explicitly with latitude, but latitude affects the overall SEA change over day-of-year AND latitude and hour-of-day (HRA), These changes are based on the earth’s declination and geometry and is strictly and specifically defined. But, Hour-of-day and day-of-year CANNOT be separated from latitude.

          3. Opposite the above, the yearly maximum solar radiation occurs in early January at 1410 watts.m^2. The minimum solar top-of-atmosphere radiation occurs July 3, when the Arctic sea ice is decreasing strongly day-by-day, BUT while Arctic sea ice is between min and max. Roughly, the edge of Arctic sea ice is between 74 and 76 north.

          At the point of maximum solar radiation at TOA, the ANTARCTIC sea ice is is a wide “ring” slowly varying from 59.2 south (October 2013 under 1370 watts/m^2) to about 64 south latitude (in January 2013 under 1410 watts/m^2) to a minimum sea ice extent at 3 Mkm^2 (in March 2013 at 70 south latitude back down to 1360 watts/m^2). So, when the TOA solar radiation is at its maximum, ARCTIC sea ice is dark. When the top-of-atmosphere radiation is at its max, Antarctic sea ice is not at its minimum.

          Net effect: As a whole, Antarctic sea ice is MUCH, MUCH closer to the equator every day of the year.

          Overall, increased heat losses from open ocean in the Arctic (when Arctic sea ice is at a minimum in late August-September) are much greater than increased heat absorbed into that open water. More sea ice loss in the Arctic => More heat loss from the planet and a net cooler planet.

          The opposite happens in the Antarctic: More sea ice around Antarctica means more heat reflected from the planet and a net cooler planet.

          Very much a loss loss in terms of heat.

      • Gail Combs says:

        If Martin wants to talk albedo and sea ice he is talking the wrong hemisphere.

        In October of 2013, the Antarctic Sea Ice Extent was at a record high maximum at right at 19.5 Million square kilometers. It has hit records again since then.

        The Antarctic Sea Ice Extent ANOMALY in October 2013 was also very high – over 1.5 Mkm^2 of “excess” southern sea ice extents. ALL of this “excess” sea ice was between latitude 60 south and latitude 59 south. ALL of this “excess” southern sea ice extents covered an area LARGER than the entire area of Hudson Bay (also centered at latitude 60), and this EXCESS southern sea covered an area about HALF the size of Greenland (a region centered between 60 north and 80 north latitude).

        The CAGW Alarmists ignored it. Totally. Absolutely ZERO coverage in the world’s press — but no press releases nor TV appearances, right?

        Now, imagine the hysteria worldwide if 1/4 of the Hudson Bay “lost” sea ice coverage! Imagine the hysteria if 1/10 of Greenland “lost” sea ice? (Actually, we read every year the hysteria when a “Manhattan-size” iceberg breaks off any glacier anywhere, so the world’s press would run out of ink printing Washington’s worry about even a 1/10 Greenland loss.)
        But, when the southern hemisphere “gains” 1/2 Greenland sea ice extents? —Nothing.

        So lets compare The Arctic Sea Ice that has Marty the Gorebot frothing at the mouth about and the record Antarctic Sea Ice Extent that the press and ClimAstrologists ignore.

        At today’s sea ice extents, the “edge” of the Arctic sea is a tiny ring about latitude 78 -82 north in mid-September. The “edge” of Antarctic’s sea ice minimum is also a “ring” – but that ring is about latitude 66 south. Much closer to the equator, much more energy reflected from the Antarctic sea ice, right? Now, at maximum extents, the “edge” Arctic sea ice is at its closest point to the equator is only down to 72 north, not even as close to the equator as the minimum Antarctic sea ice! But at its maximum, Antarctic sea ice extents is much, much higher at 59.2 to 59.0 latitude. Closer to the equator than even the most southern tip of Greenland!

        Now, at the equinoxes, when both Arctic and Antarctic are both hit by the same solar intensity, the Antarctic Sea Ice receives between 2x (Feb-March) to 5x (September-October) the energy that the Arctic sea ice receives. Thus, to reflect equal energy into space, the “gain” of even 1.0 Mkm^2 of southern sea ice extents needs to be balanced by a loss 2 to 5 LARGER in the Arctic.

        Instead, we see near even sea ice changes. So, since at today’s levels of sea ice extents, “more Arctic sea ice loss” up north means a net loss of energy from the planet; and “more sea ice extents gain” down south means a net loss of energy from the planet, we are facing a future big problem.

        • Gail Combs says:

          AR4- the physical science basis-
          Snow and Ice

          As the climate warms, snow cover and sea ice extent decrease; glaciers and ice caps lose mass owing to a dominance of summer melting over winter precipitation increases. This contributes to sea level rise as documented for the previous generation of models in the TAR. There is a projected reduction of sea ice in the 21st century in both the Arctic and Antarctic with a rather large range of model responses. The projected reduction is accelerated in the Arctic, where some models project summer sea ice cover to disappear entirely in the high-emission A2 scenario in the latter part of the 21st century. Widespread increases in thaw depth over much of the permafrost regions are projected to occur in response to warming over the next century.

          and the (non)skeptical science website says-

          The take home messages is that while the increase in total Antarctic sea ice area is relatively minor compared to the Arctic, it masks the fact that some regions are in strong decline. Given the complex interactions of winds and currents driving patterns of sea ice variability and change in the Southern Ocean climate system, this is not unexpected.

          Of course AR5 used the cut and trim method, proven to work ten times better because it won’t come back to bit you in the arse in the future. So expect AR6 to say “…sea ice.. what is sea ice, we only talk about sea level rise, and that is all we have ever talked about!” Afterall the Paris-ites are very good at rewriting history.

          Meanwhile the Northern Hemisphere snow cover which is more important to albedo than the Arctic Sea Ice continues to increase.

  3. eliza says:

    Sky news poll just out the number of climate skeptics in Britain has doubled from 12% to 24% in the last few months.
    In the article they chose to say 1 in five instead of 1 in 4 what idiots. The more they hammer it the less people believe it

    • Martin Smith says:

      Given that 2015 is the hottest on record, what do you think this poll means?

      • The poll means that nobody believes the lie about 2015 being the warmest year.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Morgan, the surface temperature data prove that 2015 is, in fact, the hottest year on record.

        • Surface temperatures don’t matter, that just means cities are growing. You need to learn how to use satellite temperatures.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Martin Smith says: “Morgan, the surface temperature data prove that 2015 is, in fact, the hottest year on record.”

          No Marty the Gorebot all that says is you can pay enough you can get government bureaucrats and grant suckers to lie. There is even a name for it, Lysenkoism.

          The crap put out by NOAA is NOT ORIGINAL DATA it is a polished turd.

      • Paul Clark says:

        But the record only goes back about 130 years, and is by a tiny amount. And in an uptweaked data set. And there’s no proof CO2 had anything to do with it. You won’t fool many on this site. Have you tried the Guardian?

        • Martin Smith says:

          Paul, you are wrong about there being no proof. I have explained the proof to you. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. You don’t matter. I’m doing what Steven is doing.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Hey Paul, here is your Poof of Gorebull Warbling!

          Last Winter Polar Vortex

          Wisconsin Ice Age Glacial Maximum

          Northern Hemisphere snow cover has soared to record levels

          2nd week April 2015 Great Lakes Ice Coverage at record levels

          and across the pond
          August count of Scottish Snow Patches at record levels


        • gymnosperm says:

          Replying to Martin:

          Boy, I missed that proof, and I’d really like to see it because all the data I’m aware of precludes human or any other CO2 as a factor in warming.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Martin, you have not offered ANY rational proof of anything.

          Your posts are totally empty of any scientific proof or real data.

          All those posts of yours have is garbled ignorant rhetoric and links to the most unscientific propaganda site around…

          But we know that is you have….. empty ignorance and meaningless propaganda BULLS**T !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          And no, you are NOT doing what SG is doing.

          SG is producing coherent evidence.

          You are producing meaningless spew.

      • Gerald Machnee says:

        Not hottest before the temperatures were massaged upward to create the “warm”.

      • Bob123 says:

        Hottest manipulated dataset on record. There, I fixed it for you.

        Satellite measurements tell a different story.

      • AndyG55 says:

        2015 is NOT the hottest year in even the short term data that we have.

        That is a LIE and you KNOW it is a LIE !!!

    • Gail Combs says:

      From Rassmussen:

      ……We decided to find out what America thinks.

      Most voters still consider global warming a serious problem. In response, President Obama earlier this month announced an energy plan that requires a 32% drop in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 2030 and a 28% increase in the amount of power generated by renewable sources by 2025. But just 33% of voters think his plan will do a lot to combat global warming, and 56% expect it to increase energy costs.

      At the same time, 56% also think Clinton’s equally ambitious plan to increase the amount of electricity generated by renewable energy sources will be good for the economy.

      But are voters willing to shell out to put these plans into action? Not really. Forty-one percent (41%) say they’re not willing to pay anything more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year.

      Of course, it probably doesn’t help that 52% think there is still significant disagreement within the scientific community about global warming. Just 34% believe scientists are in general agreement over how serious a problem it really is.

      Most important ONLY 44% think Global Warming is Primarily Caused By Human Activity AND Voters Are Skeptical of Obama’s Latest Energy Plan— survey finds that 56% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the plan will increase energy costs
      Isn’t it amazing how what questions are ask can give different views?

      Those polls give a completely different picture compared to this:

      ..The United States and the United Kingdom are leading the way in Climate Change scepticism, according to a recent survey which has found that one in three Americans and one in four Brits don’t believe climate change is a serious problem…

      Of course the UN poll put CAGW dead last as in 16th place out of 16.

  4. eliza says:

    As reported by Sky NEWS TV 24%

  5. eliza says:

    MS is a complete retard. Arctic Ice is increasing in relation to recent past years its NOT MELTING, ITS INCREASING look at your own graphs.

    • Martin Smith says:

      Eliza, let’s just agree that I am a retard. It is irrelevant. Nevertheless, Arctic sea ice is increasing right now because we are moving into winter. But the trend of the Arctic sea ice yearly minimum is down.

      • We are moving into winter in relation to past years? Why? Didn’t those past years have winters too?

        • Martin Smith says:

          That is truly a non sequitur, Morgan.

        • rah says:

          I never thought I would witness such a clear example that it is beyond some peoples cognitive ability to understand that the graphs show the measured differences of ice as a comparison for a given date or period between the current and past years.

        • Martin’s handlers got him on the cheap. They didn’t want to pay for the guy who can read charts.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Marty the Gorebot and MoreGuff are busy trying their hand at gaslighting. They must be taking pointers from David the Apalling at Climate Communications Central and flubbing it.

        • vorlath says:

          I was just gonna laugh my way through reading this whole comment section, but that comment from Martin! WOW! That is some funny stuff. Talk about being clueless.

          See guys, the ice is increasing compared to previous years because it is WINTER!!! Guys, it’s WINTER!!! Of course ice is going to increase more rapidly this year. Cuz it’s the hottest year EVAR!!! No wait, I meant WINTER, err… /sarc OMG, this is so funny!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yep Vor, that Marty goreboy sure does provide for endless mirth and hilarity.

          The ignorance just oozes from his slimy pores.

      • Gerald Machnee says:

        The trend of yearly ice is not down – it has not changed for 10 years.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “But the trend of the Arctic sea ice yearly minimum is down”

        Again a ANOTHER LIE, based on your TOTAL IGNORANCE of the drivers of Arctic sea ice.

        Yes it was heading downwards, because the AMO was heading upwards.. but

        The AMO has now turned, Arctic sea ice trend is now heading upward.

        As you are toooooo stupid to actually have even the most basic clue, you will continue to sprout the trend based purely on the upward leg of the AMO. Your continued display of your abject ignorance is funny to watch, little Goreboy.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Eliza, Martin the Gorebot truly is a Dis-info Agent just as Moreguff is.

      Statements from NSIDC: NSIDC scientists provide Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis, with partial support from NASA.

      “September 2007 sea ice extent was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), compared to 5.57 million square kilometers (2.14 million square miles) in September 2005.”

      “On September 16, 2012 sea ice extent dropped to 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles)”

      “On September 11, 2015, sea ice extent dropped to 4.41 million square kilometers (1.70 million square miles), the fourth lowest minimum in the satellite record. “Arctic sea ice reaches fourth lowest minimum

      From that article:
      Ten lowest minimum Arctic sea ice extents (1981 to 2010 average)

      Table 2. Ten lowest minimum Arctic sea ice extents (1981 to 2010 average)
      Rank – Year – In millions of sq kiometers – (In millions of sq. miles) – date

      1 ………. 2012 .. 3.39 .. (1.31) .. September 17
      2 ………. 2007 .. 4.15 .. (1.60) .. September 18
      3 ………. 2011 .. 4.34 .. (1.67) .. September 11
      4 ………. 2015 .. 4.41 .. (1.70) .. September 11
      5 ………. 2008 .. 4.59 .. (1.77) .. September 20
      6 ………. 2010 .. 4.61 .. (1.78) .. September 21
      7 ………. 2014 .. 5.03 .. (1.94) .. September 17
      8 ………. 2013 .. 5.05 .. (1.95) .. September 13
      9 ………. 2009 .. 5.12 .. (1.98) .. September 13
      10 …….. 2005 .. 5.32 .. (2.05) .. September 22

      The chart also shows 2015 within 2 standard deviations which means it is well within the normal expected range of variation.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Let’s not forget that the AMO has only just started to head down from its peak.

        The Arctic sea ice is exactly where you would expect it to be at this stage of the AMO cycle. Near its minimum, but starting to head up.

        Still way above the zero minimum levels of most of the first 3/4 of the Holocene though.

        That’s because the world is only just above the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.

        • rah says:

          And then there is the expected La Nina starting next year. If, as is the typical pattern for a La Nina the Atlantic tropic SSTs rise, the contrast in converging air masses between Arctic air and warmer air out of the tropics then England is in for some stormy weather even in the summer. And the US and Central America is in for some active Atlantic hurricane seasons.

        • AndyG55 says:

          See my post at the bottom of the thread , rah !

          Arrctic sea ice is actually at very high levels for the position of the AMO.

  6. Martin Smith says:

    Thanks for all the fun. Time for work.

  7. Steve, please don’t forget the #COP21 tag in your tweets over the next week or so. You’ll be able to make even more heads explode… Many thanks!

  8. elcrustace says:

    I was on the highway coming from the CDG Airport to Paris Friday, there was an unusual number of limousines, Rolls Royce, Bentley, Class S… All with V12 engines. I guess this was COP21 participants going to their 5 stars Palace in Paris. What a bunch of hyprocites.

  9. omanuel says:

    How Scientists Hid the Creator

    Was written for the opening of the United Nation’s COP21 Paris Conference.

    My ResearchGate account was locked, so I need your help getting this information to organizers of the UN’s COP21 Paris Conference.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

    PS: The decision to hide the Creator was made after unreported events at Konan, Korea changed the course of world history in AUG-SEPT 1945, before nations were united on 24 OCT 1945 into the UN.

  10. AndyG55 says:

    WOW, just WOW…….

    I should have done this simple analysis before.

    Look at the DMI chart here.

    You will see that the current Arctic sea ice level is skirting the -1sd line from the 1979-2000 reference period.

    Now look at where that period is in the AMO

    As you can see, we are currently WELL OUTSIDE the AMO values for that reference period.


    It seems that Arctic sea ice is doing AMAZINGLY WELL. (Not good for the people living up there though)

    PS…… Thank you Marty for drawing this to my attention. !! 😉

  11. Billy Liar says:

    I’m fed up with Martin Smith, at least Reggie (of Arctic Blowtorch fame) had a sense of humor.

  12. Kit Holz says:

    I don’t care what Al Gore ever said or thinks, but we see the Ocean’s warming up and the corals die and that happens for over 2 years now. Wait until you smart people have no fish on your tables. Climate change happens even if we have snowfalls in the arctics or somewhere else.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Yawn.. first timer with another zero content rant ! Well done Kit !

    • AndyG55 says:

      since 2001 at the end of the major El Nino, the ocean temperature trend in UAH, satellite data, the only consistent way to measure the temperature over the oceans,

      wait for it….

      NEGATIVE 0.001Cº/year

      WARMING.. no sir. !!

      Facts again foil the LIES of the AGW trollers.

    • AndyG55 says:

      We current have what is meant to be another major El Nino, but the ocean temperature is still below the peaks of 1987, 2010, 2013 and WAY below the 1998 peak.

      Maybe with the current El Nino, ocean temps will get above 1987, 2010 and 2013.. but almost certainly will not reach 1998.

      • rah says:

        Climate change has been happening since this planet has had an atmosphere long before the first hominid walked the earth so what’s your point?

      • rah says:

        Sorry Andy that was meant for Kit.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Since an El Nino is the release of heat from the ocean the actual result long term is net cooling. Since the sun has now gone sleepy and therefore the amount of energy in the short wavelength ocean penetrating region of the sun’s spectrum is less than during the 1980 and 1990s that energy is not likely to be replaced.

        FROM NASA:

        Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high,” notes Hathaway. “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We’re just not used to this kind of deep calm.”

        In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.

        “We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle, but now we have started to model that possibility because of the SIM results,” …
        “Between 2004 and 2007, the Solar Irradiance Monitor (blue line) measured a decrease in ultraviolet radiation (less than 400 nanometers) that was a factor of four to six larger than expected.” (wwwDOT)

        2007 was before the deep solar minimum of 2009.
        “…A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996….” science(DOT)

        An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate

    • gator69 says:

      Climate change is as natural as a sunrise. Get used to it, because it isn’t stopping for you, or anyone else. Climates change hourly, daily, weekly, monthly annually and eternally.

      Or you could just go run and hide from nature Chicken Little.

    • The corals are all going to die because the ocean warmed up by 0.001 degrees.

      In Hawaii the ocean went from 72 to 72.001 and the corals all died.
      In Indonesia the ocean went from 91 to 91.001 and the corals all died.

      We are talking about the corals that have survived 400,000,000 years though all mass extinctions, ice ages and warmings. Gee, they are getting so fragile now, they are bleaching!!

      • rah says:


        What Ren is showing are global sea surface temperatures. That big red streak running out into the Pacific is the current El Nino. That El Nino is releasing a huge amount of thermal energy into the atmosphere. While some of that energy heats the air the vast majority of it goes on up and leaves the atmosphere into space. An El Nino is a natural event and is one of the many mechanisms by which our planet self regulates it’s temperature. Think of it as the fog one sees coming off the warm waters of a lake when air temperatures drop. That fog results because the lake is releasing some of it’s accumulate warmth into the air. Some of that warmth heats the air above the lake but much of it continues on up and out. Tropical storms and cyclones are another method by which the earth releases thermal energy. These are natural phenomena and manifestations that the earths self regulatory system is working as it should and not events which are caused my human activities and indicate that the climate is out of balance as some would have you believe.

        Notice that big blob of cold water in the N. Atlantic. Since this map shows anomalies or IOW the departure of current temperatures from the historic average for this time. Thus that blue indicates much colder water than normally would be there at this time. That cold water is part of the equation in explaining why the UK has had a cooler than normal summer. It is also part of the reason why the UK is, and will continue to have, a stormy fall and winter.

        Contrary to what the propaganda would have you believe, warm or cold air alone does not cause storms. It is the convergence of cold air with warm air that results in storms. Ever notice how quickly a hot summer day can cool when a thunderstorm approaches? The propaganda claims that the Arctic will warm and at the same time claims that there will be more severe weather events. But the fact is that if the Arctic did warm then the contrast in temperatures between the tropics and Arctic would decrease and thus the incidence and strength of storms would actually decrease and not increase as they claim.

        You don’t have to be an expert to see through this scam. All you have to do is observe the natural world around you to have enough knowledge to debunk their claims.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Kit! You say, “the Ocean’s are warming up”. Are they? Are you sure? Look at the most common chart shown for ocean warming claims. It shows about 24 X 10^22 joules of heat going into the top 2000 meters of the ocean over the last half century. Sounds like a lot, huh? Why on earth does it show joules of heat? Do you know anyone who commonly describes how much something has warmed by how many joules of heat has gone into it? Why not say how much of a temperature change that equals? The math is not hard, and the answer is “less than a tenth of a degree.” Now ask yourself, “How accurately do we know what the global average temperature of the world’s ocean was half a century ago?” The answer is, “not very accurately”. Maybe it was a degree, maybe less, certainly not very much less. The reported change in temperature is much, much smaller than the size of the error bars. We do not know with any certainty that there has been any change at all. Imagine that you asked someone with an old wooden ruler to measure your height. If they told you “1.80036 meters” would you believe them?

      Oh, as for the “Wait until you smart people have no fish on your tables.”, well, I am a vegetarian and have done more than my share to leave the fish in the ocean. The reason why fish populations are falling is because they are being over fished, not because of climate change. Misuse of resources is a foreseeable outcome when no one has property rights over fish. When everybody owns something, nobody owns it — so it gets misused.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “…the Ocean’s warming up and the corals die …

      That is a flat out lie from the alarmists and easily disproved. Anyone with a smidgen of geology training laughs at that claim.

      What is the age of corals?
      Corals are 500 million years old, and date back to the late Cambrian period.

      What are the temperatures for those 500 million years?

      750 million years

      65 Million years

      5 million years

      140,000 years (present on the left)

      10,000 years

  13. Bo Lagerqvist says:

    According to the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA) climate impacts of construction processes in Sweden stand for equal CO2 emissons of all cars in Sweden. If CO2 emissions cause climate change we must be careful and not tear down functional buildings – if not necessary – to replace them with new concrete buildings, especially if the threatened buildings are of high historical value. Many Stockholmers are now concerned about the Nobel Foundation´s plans to demolish three buildings, a beautiful Customs House built in 1876 and two unique wooden warehouses, and replace them with a huge concrete/glass/brass complex in honor of dynamite and weapons manufacturer Alfred Nobel. The proposed building would wipe out a valuable part of the historic waterfront environment in Stockholm’s inner harbour and darken the National Museum of Fine Arts. Please watch the video to get an idea of the project’s impact on the environment in Stockholm’s historic harbor:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s