NOAA Is Getting Bolder And Bolder With Their Climate Fraud

Check out yesterday’s mind-blowing peer-reviewed Arctic fraud from NOAA’s chief scientist – Rick Spinrad


Arctic air temperatures highest since 1900, global report shows – Telegraph

The US weather Bureau reported exactly the same thing in 1922. Seals disappearing and fish being forced northwards. However, in 1922 the reported warming was much larger than 2.3 degrees.


In 1947, scientists reported 10 degrees Arctic warming, much more than the 2.3 degrees reported by Rick Spinrad.



Glaciers were disappearing from Alaska to Norway.



The sea ice maximum occurred at the end of March, not February 25 as Spinrad claimed, and extent is the highest since at least 2004, not the “lowest on record


Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Satellites show that recent Arctic temperatures peaked about 2010, and have fallen half a degree since then.


RSS / MSU and AMSU Data / Time Series Trend Browser

Before data tampering, Arctic temperatures were at least as warm in 1940 as they are now. Spinrad cherry-picked 1979 as his start date for many of his metrics, because it was the coldest year on record in the Arctic.


Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Arctic warming was causing major challenges to communities 60 years ago.



But the biggest lie of all is his claim “the lowest extent recorded since records began in 1979.” The graph below is from the 1995 IPCC report, and shows that NOAA has sea ice data going back to at least 1973, and that extent was much lower in 1974. Spinrad cherry picked 1979 because it was the maximum of the last 45 years, and hid the earlier NOAA data which showed that ice extent was much lower prior to 1979.


He said “we know it is due to climate change.” Climate change is natural and occurs all the time. What Spinrad is reporting is due to his own junk science.

Every single one of Spinrad’s claims was either false or misleading. The norm in government climate science. Why doesn’t peer-review catch these blatant errors?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to NOAA Is Getting Bolder And Bolder With Their Climate Fraud

  1. CheshireRed says:

    ‘The lowest extent recorded since records began in 1979’.

    A falsifiable statement and provable lie. After that, his creditability is shot.

  2. Pethefin says:

    Tony, you should supply reference to the absolutely devastating figure 3.8. from the IPCC SAR 1995, Working Group I: The Science of Climate Change: page 150
    alternatively available through:

  3. FTOP says:

    I guess when a NOAA scientist has no conscience or integrity, they feel no shame. The greatest tragedy of the AGW scam is its impact on scientific integrity.

  4. Pethefin says:

    The figure from IPCC SAR 1995, Working Group I: The Science of Climate Change: page 150, is even more devastating when one reads the main text introducing the figure on that page:

    “Neither hemisphere has exhibited significant trends in
    sea ice extent since 1973 when satellite measurements began (Figure 3.8.)”

    So satellite measurements began in 1973 but are no longer a part of the official story?

  5. Pethefin says:

    I meant to write that satellite measurements from 1973-1978 are no longer part of the official story (since they do not fit to the narrative)

  6. Pethefin says:

    Tony, I really hope you are looking into a method to unify the sea ice anomaly data from the figures for 1973-1994 with the current anomaly data from 1979 until today.

  7. Pethefin says:

    There are some really interesting sea ice graphs covering longer time periods available here: ice extension in a longer time perspective
    that make the current sea ice alarm look rather foolish

  8. Douglas Proctor says:

    Re: Satellite Arctic data trends.

    The 11-year solar cycle is clear. From 1995, a two-cycle of 22 years takes us to 2017. It looks to me like we can’t use the post-2010 period as an indicator of long-term trends and the 11-year is actually made up of 2 approximately 6-year cycles.

    I really, really don’t like linear trends of this data type as there is far too obvious cycles and one-main shift. The gross linear trend is too sensitive to endpoints. If there are indeed cycles, we’d have to find some mid-point equivalent to represent the cycle. Which would give us insufficient points to have significance.

    Non-linear patterns are not used because the CO2-control-knob theory implies near-linear growth to reflect near-linear changes in atmospheric CO2. Natural variability or solar theories imply patterns reflective of the forces behind them, which are (to the best of my knowledge) are recognized as cyclic, though not equal in amplitude (cyclic vs periodic or vice versa?).

    Anyway, the data looks to me still inconclusive due to a limited period of time, however, it also looks conclusive to me that fitting linear trends for the past 40 or 50 years of data is inappropriate. The cyclic (term?) signal is too strong and distorts the true pattern by the choice of endpoints.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.