Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
January 2006 was the warmest January on record in Fort Collins, Colorado – and much of the US. The average January maximum temperature was 52 degrees, and I spent much of the month in a short sleeve shirt. In February I moved to the Bay Area.
I moved back to Fort Collins in mid-July, and it was incredibly hot. Driving across I-80 in California it was 116 degrees. Our pool in Cupertino got hot all the way down to the bottom.
Global warming was a sure thing – I was convinced.
But something happened in September. I was coaching soccer, and the weather turned cold and wet. We spent a lot of games bundled up that year, and in subsequent years.
December, 2006 brought the largest snowstorm on record and bitter cold to Fort Collins
It stayed cold all winter. If the warm air in January and July was due to trapped heat, why did CO2 stop trapping the heat in September? So I started looking at the data for myself. It didn’t take long to understand that the people pushing global warming were not doing any actual science.
This September has also turned very cold and wet here. It reminded me.
Higher than 2016, 2015, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2008 and 2007 is now the third lowest on record.
And a 40% increase in ice over the past five years is “massive melting”
The New York Times claims that satellites were first used to study the Arctic in the late 1970s.
In 1990, Tom Karl and Kevin Trenberth said we have “routinely” collected satellite data back to the early 1970’s, when sea ice extent was “significantly less”
h/t Leigh Yaxley
Details here from the National Ice Center
NOAA and the New York Times are now trying to hide the pre-1970 low sea ice extent, because it wrecks their global warming story.
This is a smoking gun of fraud. The people behind this need to called out and shut down.
During week 37, NSIDC ages Arctic ice by one year. Note how NSIDC aged the ice last year in Mid-September.
That means the Arctic is now largely full of multi-year ice. Except for new ice from the last couple of days, all of the ice is multi-year ice.
In 2009, experts announced the end of multi-year ice.
Year after year, NASA fraudster Gavin Schmidt says it is the hottest year ever, and that the Arctic is warming faster than any place on earth. Yet Arctic ice is growing.
Either Gavin is lying, or the freezing point of water has changed.
Three weeks ago I made this forecast of fraud and deception by the science community.
Instead of reporting the huge gain in ice and massive failure of their forecasts, climate alarmists will report that extent was “8th lowest on record.”
My forecast was spot on.
Compare my forecasts vs. their forecasts. They get paid billions of dollars and win Nobel Prizes to lie about the Arctic. I tell the truth about the Arctic – for free.
The New York Times just published another fake climate article – this time about the Arctic. They start the article with the claim that satellites were first used to study the Arctic in 1979.
Given that we traveled to the moon in 1969, it is absurd to suggest that satellites weren’t used to study the Arctic before 1979. Here is a 1964 satellite image of the Arctic which was published in National Geographic in 1965.
Here is a detailed National Geographic Arctic sea ice map from 1971.
Here is a detailed satellite image of Antarctica from 1976, also published in National Geographic.
The 1990 IPCC report included NOAA Arctic satellite data back to 1973, when it was much lower than 1979.
In a spectacular display of scientific malpractice, NOAA now hides all of the pre-1979 peak Arctic sea ice data. By starting right at the peak, they produce a fake linear downwards trend.
This 1985 DOE climate change report had Arctic data back to 1925, which showed little ice from the 1930s to the 1950s.
So why did the New York Times cherry pick 1979 as their start date? Because it came at the end of three of the coldest US winters on record , and Arctic sea ice was at a century peak. The graph below combines the 1985 DOE graph with the 1990 IPCC graph.
If the New York Times authors had bothered to research their own paper, they could have found this out for themselves. It was very warm in the Arctic in 1958
Three years later, the New York Times reported a unanimous consensus that earth was cooling.
By 1970, the Arctic climate was becoming more frigid, the ice was getting “ominously thicker” – and scientists were worried about a new ice age.
The polar ice cap had expanded 12% by 1975, after shrinking 12% before 1958. Icelandic ports were blocked with ice for the first time in the 20th century.
By hiding all the data before the 1979 peak, the New York Times is defrauding its readers. Arctic climate is cyclical – not linear.
Ninety-five years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.
Eighty years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.
Sixty five years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.
Then the New York Times went on to obscure their graph (below) to hide the fact that there has been a large increase in minimum extent since 2012. Note the “End of summer minimum” label is at the 2012 minimum – not the 2017 minimum.
The Arctic minimum extent has been increasing for a decade. The New York Times doesn’t want their readers to know this.
The New York Times is defrauding their readers at many levels. It is the fake news we have learned to expect from them.