Arctic BS Continues For Another Day

There is almost no melting occurring in the Arctic.


May 21        May 27

Because ice doesn’t melt below freezing.


10-Day Temperature Outlook

DMI shows ice rapidly melting and extent far below last year.

icecover_current_new (6)

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

But their maps show about 1% more ice this year than last.


How long will this scam continue?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to Arctic BS Continues For Another Day

  1. mogur says:

    Really? Another dithered pixel count? You used to love DMI when they showed graphs that were the closest to your biases. Now they are BS? Who do you love, Tony? The Danes are Obama’s bitches now? Is this politics? Is this conspiracy? Did Ronald Reagan piss you off when he signed onto the Montreal protocol? Is the EPA telling you to get off your bike?

    Try being human, and look at the evidence. I don’t think you are paid by big oil. They just are grinning at you.

  2. mogur says:

    Arctic sea ice does not melt if the average arctic temperature is below 32 degrees?

    Are you even serious? Is this the ‘new’ triple point argument?

  3. Sparks says:

    Ice melts… in this case, guinea pigs and lab rats all look fine to me.

  4. RickS says:



    It is one way to put the NSIDC on ice since they cannot be trusted anyway !!

    I will now check this page for my Arctic Info !!!

    Whether the Arctic Ice shrinks or grows is irrelevant, there must be something to differentiate this page from lying scumbags (NASA/NOAA/NSIDC) where they will consistently move the goal posts to fabricate their ideology/methodology !!!

    Real “Science” Matters !

    And yes the Arctic Sea Ice has virtually completely recovered !!

    While the “Antarctic” Ice is still roughly in over-drive !!

    As of May, 2016, Global Ice is now running at its greatest extent measured to date, and which could intensify markedly in the very near future, and that is “not” a good thing…

    It seems as though that things are about to get a lot worse !!!!!

    Pray for Global Warming !

  5. charles nelson says:

    Null School Earth.
    Easy to check surface temperatures in the Arctic Regions.
    Great way to upset the crazies who claim that it is melting away!

  6. mogur says:

    This is Tony’s blog, and I have no right to crap on it. But, he is lying to you. A triple point is not what Tony wants you to believe. It is the convolution of pressure, temperature, and phase.

    “The single combination of pressure and temperature at which liquid water, solid ice, and water vapor can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurs at exactly 273.16 K (0.01 °C; 32.02 °F) and a partial vapor pressure of 611.657 pascals (6.11657 mbar; 0.00603659 atm).[4] [5]At that point, it is possible to change all of the substance to ice, water, or vapor by making arbitrarily small changes in pressure and temperature. Even if the total pressure of a system is well above triple point of water, provided the partial pressure of the water vapor is 611.657 pascals then the system can still be brought to the triple point of water. Strictly speaking, the surfaces separating the different phases should also be perfectly flat, to negate the effects of surface tensions.

    The gas–liquid–solid triple point of water corresponds to the minimum pressure at which liquid water can exist. At pressures below the triple point (as in outer space), solid ice when heated at constant pressure is converted directly into water vapor in a process known as sublimation. Above the triple point, solid ice when heated at constant pressure first melts to form liquid water, and then evaporates or boils to form vapor at a higher temperature.

    For most substances the gas–liquid–solid triple point is also the minimum temperature at which the liquid can exist. For water, however, this is not true because the melting point of ordinary ice decreases as a function of pressure, as shown by the dotted green line in the phase diagram. At temperatures just below the triple point, compression at constant temperature transforms water vapor first to solid and then to liquid (water ice has lower density than liquid water, so increasing pressure leads to a liquefaction).

    The triple point pressure of water was used during the Mariner 9 mission to Mars as a reference point to define “sea level”. More recent missions use laser altimetry and gravity measurements instead of pressure to define elevation on Mars.[6]

    High pressure phases[edit]
    At high pressures, water has a complex phase diagram with 15 known phases of ice and several triple points including ten whose coordinates are shown in the diagram. For example, the triple point at 251 K (−22 °C) and 210 MPa (2070 atm) corresponds to the conditions for the coexistence of ice Ih (ordinary ice), ice III and liquid water, all at equilibrium. There are also triple points for the coexistence of three solid phases, for example ice II, ice V and ice VI at 218 K (−55 °C) and 620 MPa (6120 atm).

    For those high-pressure forms of ice which can exist in equilibrium with liquid, the diagram shows that melting points increase with pressure. At temperatures above 273 K (0 °C), increasing the pressure on water vapor results first in liquid water and then a high-pressure form of ice. In the range 251–273 K, ice I is formed first, followed by liquid water and then ice III or ice V, followed by other still denser high-pressure forms.”

    • AndyG55 says:

      Wow.. you learnt to copy and paste.

      No attribution for your plagiarism , I notice.

      Now explain how this is relevant to ice melting below its melting point in the Arctic.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      You are a funny guy, mogur. I mean funny like a clown. You make me laugh.

    • charles nelson says:

      Eeek Mongul says all the ice in the arctic is sublimating….help eeeek!

    • charles nelson says:

      83.25° N, 145.57° W ✕
      310° @ 9 km/h
      1035 hPa

      So right now atmospheric pressure is high over the arctic…wonder what effect that has on the sublimation point?

      • Marty says:

        Loss through sublimation is negligible.

        under certain conditions you can actually see sublimation, it’s called diamond dust, sublimation freezes and falls back to the ground if the airflow is stagnant. The phenomenon creates this zone of ice crystals about 30 meters high, with near surface

        Visibility is high, it looks like a very thin mist, the mass loss from ice turning to vapor is not hardly even worth mentioning unless wind speeds are high

        Multiply wind speed by 4 to double sublimation. Wind speeds has nothing to do with CO2 or CAGW.

        No wind and the sublimation falls back down.

        Sublimation in the Greenland interior near the summit falls back down.

        Plus sublimation sticks to anything in freezing conditions. Like the ice that forms on the beards of explorers, that’s sublimation that will occur from freezing vapor in breath and from the air.

        There are only guesstimates of sublimation loss, nothing even approaching empirical measurement. Winds deposit as much sublimation as the remove, because once sublimation goes up, it comes back down as precipitation.

    • tonyheller says:

      The desperate attempts to change the subject are very telling

    • Great copy/paste…

      Now apply a pinch of skepticism to what NOAA and NASA throw out on a weekly basis..

  7. Friar Geschwind says:

    Remember this question 10-15 years from now.

    “What excuses will you make when it becomes obvious to a 6 year old that the ice has shrunken (let’s say less than 1,000,000 square kilometers?”

    You are nothing but a bunch of foolish contrarians constantly changing the goal posts.

    “It’s cooling; no! it’s paused and who cares that it’s increasing naturally!”

    • wert says:

      This is the most psychedelic blog there is on climate.

    • Marty says:

      Maybe you should first ask what happened all of the 5 year ice NCISD vanished between week 39 and week 41.

    • rw says:

      I remember what people like you were saying 10-15 years ago.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Remember this question 10-15 years from now.”

      What excuse will you have for all the money wasted attempting to combat an imaginary problem with CO2, destabilising the energy systems in developed countries, and for depriving poor countries of the right to solid reliable energy?

      • Barbara says:

        Thank you, AndG 55! You make very pertinent points – huge amounts of wasted money, energy supplies destabilized, the poor even poorer with less to eat, etc. Remember, though, you are dealing with those who are misanthropes determined to de-industrialize the successful, life enhancing societies and bring us all back to hunkering over camp fires in caves.

  8. Jim Hunt says:

    Especially for RickS, here’s an “Arctic satellite photo” of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago on May 27th 2015. That’s the group of islands top centre of Tony’s “surface temperature” forecast. For a bit of variety there’s an added touch of infrared this time.

    Perhaps Rick can reveal where all the open water corresponding to the green pixels on Tony’s 2015/16 comparison map can be seen. Here’s the original source:

    Or there again, perhaps just like Tony, Andy, Tommy, Dave, RAH et al. he can’t?

  9. Jim Hunt says:

    More haste, less speed. Rick’s bonus for 10:

    • AndyG55 says:

      So.. again, you show there is nothing unusual happening up there.

      NOWHERE near the ZERO Arctic sea ice levels of most of the Holocene.

      Well done Jimbo.

      Tell us when something untoward actually happens ..

      Waiting, waiting.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Ooo000000 ….. pretty orange..

      and again…. TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

      A Jimbo speciality.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Tell us Jimbo, have you got one from some time in the first 3/4 of the Holocene.?

      Or are you going to DENY the Arctic’s real history.. still..

      Way too difficult for you, isn’t Jimbo.

      • Jim Hunt says:

        The topic under discussion here is whether there is in actual fact “1% more ice this year than last”, as claimed in the original post.

        Perhaps if you ask Tony nicely he’ll publish a “guest post” of yours on the esoteric topic of “Satellite images of the Arctic in the first 3/4 of the Holocene”?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor Jimbo.. run and hide from the facts, little worm.

          • Sunsettommy says:

            Yeah Jimmy is that stupid to even say that because Andy never said Satellite when he points out what Jimmy keeps dodging about the first 3/4 Holocene of little or no summer ice. He was only mocking Jimmy who seems unaware that what he whines about is irrelevant, since CO2 is not a driver of sea ice melt or increase anyway.

            It appears that Jimmy is completely unaware of published science papers showing the evidence that indeed there were periods of time in the earlier part of the Holocene,that there little to no SUMMER ice all while that awesome gas was around 260-280 ppm level.

            Warmists are really that stupid when they fail to realize that CO2 level in the air changes for the last 10,000 years is minimal, while there have been documented large swings in temperature in the region.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Oh, being the “expert” (lol) he is, Jimbo is absolutely aware of the fact that Arctic sea ice was often ZERO in summer through the first 3/4 of the Holocene when CO2 levels were at basic plant subsistence levels.

            But he just CANNOT allow himself to say it or to put it on his Arctic Con web site because he knows it would totally destroy the Arctic sea ice scare that his buddies at Exeter Uni want him to push.
            (Exeter Uni is Robert Betts territory.. alarmista sub-central)

        • Sunsettommy says:


          You are being attacked because you are being dishonest about the whole topic. You quibble over a 1% difference while climate realists have told you that there have been much larger swings in size since the 1920’s,that you seem to ignore. Tony himself posted a number of times about this showing huge melting of the Arctic region back in the 1920’s and 30’s.

          Andy and others like myself point out that you and narrow minded warmists ignore the arctic ice data before 1979. Satellite data (by the same Nimbus satellite class) goes back to 1973 and back to the mid 1960’s with earlier satellite design.Yet warmists NEVER seem to care about those time frames from the mid 1960’s to 1978 either.

          The madness continues here when Jimmy keeps ignoring the big picture (The HOLOCENE time frame) for the sake of continuing the obviously dishonest warmist propaganda over a tiny slice of time.

          That is why you are being ridiculed here.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Tommy – Here are all the words in Tony’s original post:

            There is almost no melting occurring in the Arctic. Because ice doesn’t melt below freezing. DMI shows ice rapidly melting and extent far below last year. But their maps show about 1% more ice this year than last. How long will this scam continue?


      • Marty says:

        Unfortunately, there is clearly another issue affecting the 15% and area measurement, apart from Jaxa having a 10% margin of error and being poor at measuring ice with melt water on it, as per their own site FYI

        That is not melt, and it has certainly affected the measurement

  10. charles nelson says:

    Maybe someone could supply us with a list of all the people traversing the NW passage by canoe this year…that should give us all a laugh.

  11. See - owe to Rich says:

    I don’t know why so much is being made of what the “triple point” is.

    Anyway, ice _can_ melt when mean temperature is zero, because the sun can melt it, or water from below can melt it. Ice very naturally keeps the air just above it close to zero, unless it is windy.


    • Marty says:

      Which is why wind speed is important not only in melt, but in how it moves ice.

      We know Wind speed has nothing to do with CO2.

  12. Mark Stova says:

    I see there is a lot of stupid on display in this thread. It is amazing what one fool can do to a discussion.

    But the facts are that there the south pole has been growing in ice and the north pole is holding steady pretty much. But so what? What if the ice in the summer at the north pole melted? So f’ing what.

    What would happen if there was no summer ice? Nothing is what — other than shipping would love it. Don’t start on polar bears. That myth is just too stupid to bring up. The damn things are swimmers beyond compare.

    • Friar Geschwind says:

      The increase of sea ice in the Antarctic is due to higher than average winds pushing the ice away. And that has no bearing on the Arctic region which, when it totally melts out, will change weather patterns throughout the United States and everywhere south of the Arctic.

      Open water affects the atmosphere differently than ice. There is more evaporation which leads to more precipitation; which leads to more flooding, etc..

      • Mark Stoval says:

        “And that has no bearing on the Arctic region which, when it totally melts out, will change weather patterns throughout the United States and everywhere south of the Arctic.”

        That is just bullshit. The arctic being “ice free”, which is not happening anyway, does not mean disaster to the USA’s weather. Many think it would be better.

        Regardless, prove that it would be worse since extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof from the one making the claim.

        • Marty says:

          For how many years did they tell the lie that melting sea ice would raise sea levels, people believed that junk for 20 years

      • AndyG55 says:


        1. the Arctic ice is, unfortunately, not going to recover to the near zero summer sea ice levels of the first 3/4 of the Holocene.

        2. the rest of your comment is baseless conjecture, like the whole AGW scam is proving to be.

        • Marty says:

          Even in this pretty intense El Nino year.. the actual melt is un-concerning.

          Arctic ice melt is an important cycle to transport minerals carbon and oxygen into the deep ocean via the cool deep water return of the AMOC.

          Without this cycle there would be a lot less life in the deep ocean.

          Melting ice is also fertilizer for Phytoplankton, we only need that to breathe after all :D

        • Marty says:

          The last time the Arctic completely melted no doubt the AMOC changed, because water was not getting cold and sinking in the arctic.

          Hansen thinks that is man made doom, even though it happened first 3/4 of the Holocene

          • AndyG55 says:

            By looking at isea ice around Iceland, we can see the reason why there is currently still so much Arctic sea ice.

            The effect of the Little Ice Age was a huge increase in sea ice.

            The AMO is only just starting to re-establish its cycle properly. It has just peaked over the last several years, and is now starting to head back down. The El Nino that released so much energy from the tropics, feeding some of it up into the Arctic, has also gone.

            I suspect that next year will bring a strong increase in Arctic sea ice levels, and the likes of Jimbo and other Arctic scaremongers will slither back into the manure pile where they came from.

      • Sunsettommy says:

        Friar,it has ALWAYS froze up in the Arctic during the winter the entire time we have been in this inter glacial phase.

        The increase is Sea ice is due to a COOLER ocean in the region.

    • Marty says:

      It’s about scaring people with anomalies.

      Lets have absolute temperatures and absolute volumes.

      But they are not scary

    • Marty says:

      They are using JAXA but it is only accurate to 10% and has issues measuring ice with melt water on it, it messes wit their sensor

      JAXA is useless for measuring ice to within 1% levels

  13. Latitude says:

    I’m still wondering why anyone would care….
    Arctic floating ice is mostly affected by things that have nothing to do with climate change

    It could all melt tomorrow…while global temps go down
    …or it could freeze over solid…while global temps go up

  14. frederik wisse says:

    Every extortion is framed with underlying so-called good intentions .
    However if reality does not correspond with the narrative , what else is left for a blackmailer than distorting the facts ? The whole care of our future generations is nothing else than a carefully veiled lie , especially directed against the good-willing hardworking part of our society , enabling burocrats , civil servants , leftist bigmouths
    to steal whatever they consider is due to them . Listen to the singsong of your president and you will know what i am talking about …..

    • Friar Geschwind says:

      Ah yes, the evil CONSPIRACY of clinically delusional paranoids.

      It’s a (set to music): Socialistic, Masonic, green reptilian, Mooooooslim plot to sap our precious bodily fluids.

      • Zebo says:

        Well,as i know usually the groups are blamed arw the bilderbergers,trilleteral commision,the CFR and the zionists
        bankers and these protocols that are so fake that they turned out to be a history book written before history has happened
        (and Bezmenov,a sowjetrussian who fled to the usa 40 years ago and has been warning since than about what is happening now)
        -so please get your facts straight

      • Sparks says:

        Give it a rest Friar Geschwind, no one is against welfare or anyone having the right to what the law says you can live on.
        How can you have elections and call it democracy if the same jack booted overly bureaucratic civil service remains in power?

        Their just doing their job aren’t they :D

      • Marty says:

        No this is conspiracy theory

        “From: “Michael E. Mann”
        To: Phil Jones ,???, ???,???,???
        Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
        Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
        Cc: ???,???,???, ???,???,???, ???

        Thanks Phil,
        (Tom: Congrats again!)
        The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a ‘legitimate’ peer review process
        anywhere. That leaves only one possibility–that the peer-review process at Climate
        Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De
        Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department…
        The skeptics appear to have staged a ‘coup’ at “Climate Research” (it was a mediocre
        journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite ‘purpose’).
        Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
        In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed
        this a bit. I’ve cc’d Mike in on this as well, and I’ve included Peck too. I told Mike that
        I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper.
        They’ve already achieved what they wanted–the claim of a peer-reviewed paper.
        There is nothing we can do about that now, but
        the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the
        community on the whole…
        It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the
        presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My
        guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he’s an odd individual, and I’m
        not sure he isn’t himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their
        side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
        There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that
        couldn’t get published in a reputable journal.
        This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
        “peer-reviewed literature”.
        Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!
        So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a
        legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
        research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
        need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
        sit on the editorial board…
        What do others think?

        • KTM says:

          If someone publishes an article that is wrong, you refute it!

          If their only option is to ignore the paper, that proves it is right. The brilliance of that particular paper was that it cited the Warmists’ own work on historical temperature proxies, put it all together, and showed clearly that the MWP existed and that the modern era is no warmer for almost all proxies analyzed.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Here is what former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015 said.

        “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,”

        Or how about about Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, who said.

        “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”

        There were other comments available from the start. For example, there was Senator Timothy Wirth’s 1993 remark.

        “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …”

        The TOTALITARIAN SOCIALIST agenda, straight from their own moths..

        • Sparks says:

          If you’re the law and you get you’re cronies to tell an unemployed person they can have nothing, then you’re my enemy.

          Socialism is for layers, solicitors and scumbag bureaucratic civil servants.
          Unemployment is for engineers who have built your homes, hospitals, factories and everything else over the centuries.

          Please elaborate how all this is a conspiracy? it is fact!!

  15. Lance says:

    The article is about melting.
    Melting occurs above the melting point of a substance at STP.

    Sublimation occurs at or below the normal melting point of a substance referenced to water at 32F because of an overlying vapor pressure that allows sublimation.

    It would be admirable if people would stay on point and not engage in idiocy.

  16. etudiant says:

    Is not the bulk of the Arctic ice loss due to the combination of drift loss down the West coast of Greenland plus melting from somewhat warmer ocean water below?

    Separately, the various ice extent graphs all seem to have differing standards for what is measured, with some based on as little as 15% ice cover IIRC. That makes for a lot of apple to orange comparisons unless all aspects are nailed down.

  17. Jim Hunt says:

    Evidently Tony Heller believes that when it comes to melting sea ice air temperatures are all that matters and that “somewhat warmer ocean water” is irrelevant. see above:

    He also evidently believes that in May 2015 large areas of the oldest and thickest sea ice in the Arctic had already melted away to nothing. Perhaps you can point out all the polynyas around the coast of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago this time last year to him, since nobody else has yet managed to do so?

    • AndyG55 says:

      gees, Jimbo has change to a luminous blue.

      Very pretty Jim..

      Now how about you show one that shows th near ZERO Arctic sea ice from the first 3/4 of the Holocene..

      Or are you still going to DENY/ IGNORE the FACT that there is nothing untoward happening with the Arctic Sea Ice, and all you are arguing about is the INSIGNIFICANT TRIVIA that rules your meaningless life.

    • Marty says:

      Jim if you dont mind me asking, what satellite is that measurement taken with?

      Is it AMSR2?

      “it should be noted that SIC less than 10% is not reliable since it is difficult to determine the difference in microwave emissivity between very low
      percentage sea ice covered areas and open water.”

      • Marty says:

        Also read the extensive caveats in that PDF.

        It’s all about adjustments and algorithms

        The Japanese are along for the ride in this Fraud, they have adjusted their own historical data to match NASA and CRU

        • AndyG55 says:

          You bet they have.. they actually use GHCN corrupted data, rather than do their own work…..that’s how anti-science they are.

      • Jim Hunt says:

        No it isn’t Marty.

        If you had bothered to click my link to Worldview you would no doubt readily appreciate by now that the image was in actual fact derived from bands 1, 2 & 7 of the MODIS instrument on the Aqua satellite. FYI bands 1, 2 & 7 are not “microwaves”.

        Here’s what the CAA looked like on May 27th 2015 from the vantage point of AMSR2:

  18. Jim Hunt says:

    For psychedelic Arctic surface air temperature fans every where:

    What do you suppose happens to sea ice when you combine “somewhat warmer ocean water” with “somewhat above freezing point air”?

    N.B. Such conditions do not currently exist off the north coast of the CAA. They didn’t in May 2015 either.

    • AndyG55 says:

      You on psycho drugs yet again, Jimbo

      Which of your Exeter buddies is feeding them too you ?

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Evidently you and Tony are the ones who have been smoking stuff Andy.

        In the fantasy wonderland portrayed in several of Tony’s recent “articles” polynyas are depicted in the oldest, thickest sea ice in the Arctic in May 2015. Here is what the real life polynyas in the “oldest, thickest sea ice” in the actual Arctic of May 2016 look like from above (through cyan tinted spectacles):

        • AndyG55 says:



          Different data shows different Arctic sea ice,

          so f***ing what….

          These differences, and the difference from year to year, are miniscule compared to the MASSIVE NATURAL VARIATION throughout the Holocene.

          You KNOW that, but your continued non-admission to this FACT shows you up as nothing but a brain-dead, propaganda cretin.

          Tell the guys at Exeter that you have had enough of LYING and CORRUPTING your soul for them,

          Tell them that even the psycho drugs aren’t helping you.


          …for once in you miserable life.

          That will set you free.

  19. Caleb says:

    Just keep doing these comparisons, Tony. They make a valid point, and help us see what is really occurring.

    For the most part I’m just going to sit back and watch, and wait, to see how my forecast turns out. It’s darn risky to say anything, as either the reply is off topic and obscure, or else you get a modern version of Dan Aykroyd saying, “Jane, you ignorant slut.”

    • Jim Hunt says:

      You cannot be serious Caleb?

      Tony’s comparisons are utterly invalid. At the risk of repeating myself repeating myself repeating myself.

      Where is all the open water in the CAA on May 27th 2015 corresponding to the green pixels on Tony’s 2015/16 comparison map above?

      What colour scheme would you like to see tomorrow, if as seems likely red, white and blue are insufficient to overcome your colour blindness?

  20. Greg Raven says:

    You should check out JuxtaposeJS ( for some of these before/after images.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *