Massive Greenland Fraud Is Rapidly Growing

Last summer, University of California scientists made this hysterical claim about the Zachariae Isstrom glacier in northeast Greenland.

2016-05-01102333

Massive northeast Greenland glacier is rapidly melting, UCI-led team finds

It’s a great story, only problem is it is a complete fabrication. If anything, the glacier has grown since 2012.

Zachariae-2012-2015

2012: EOSDIS Worldview 2015 : EOSDIS Worldview

In 1940, scientists reported that glaciers in Northeast Greenland were receding very rapidly, and were “nearing a catastrophe.

COPGrUmWoAARHTG

06 May 1940 – Greenland’s Climate Becoming Milder – Trove

The glaciers are still there, there is no catastrophe, and the only thing that has changed is that the fraudsters at NASA have erased the 1940’s warmth in that region.

Reykjavik2011-2016

If the glaciers were receding rapidly in 1940 and are not now, then it must have been warmer in 1940 than it is now. But logic and data are not a part of the criminal venture known as “climate science.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Massive Greenland Fraud Is Rapidly Growing

  1. TA says:

    “If the glaciers were receding rapidly in 1940 and are not now, then it must have been warmer in 1940 than it is now. ”

    Makes perfect sense to me.

    Thanks for holding their feet to the fire, Tony.

  2. Snowleopard says:

    Yes the warm side of the previous PDO cycle (~1917-47) was obviously warmer than the last one (~1978-2007) despite a more active sun during most of the latter period. This suggests a declining climate temperature that most do not notice due to their choice of attention span and constant programing to see the opposite.

    Fewer still (even historians) seem to notice the declining peak temperatures and lengths of the quasi-millennial warm periods. Roman Warm Period ~700 yrs (~250BC to 450AD) Medieval Warm Period ~350 yrs (~950-1300) and so called Modern Warm Period ~175yrs?? (~1850-20??)

    If anything governments should be preparing humanity to survive the oncoming ice age, not misdirecting them to expect warming.

  3. AndyG55 says:

    North Atlantic sea temperatures are dropping rapidly

    If you are in the NH.. buy blankets, stock up on wood for burning.

  4. Li D says:

    How come people promote data
    from organisations they reckon
    lie about data?
    Is this a reasonable question?

    • sam says:

      Because an organization like NASA or the NOAA is a massive bureaucracy, the agencies are dominated by people who have a mostly political view about ‘climate change’ where they claim there is this constant ‘warming’ and the climate doesn’t really naturally fluctuate between war and cold. But certain dominant actors in these these orgs can only fudge so much. For example the EOSDIS photos that TH shared. The technology exists so that the earth can constantly be photographed and those photos can not be hidden from public view since the satellites were paid for by taxpayers. When politically driven articles appear in major newspapers about this ‘melting ice’, that is backed by questionable papers that claim ice is ‘melting’ but with only a certain degree of reliability that doesn’t prove the ice is really melting just that well maybe its melting more than its freezing since its always melting and freezing.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Is the principle of cross-examination of evidence foreign to you?
      Isn’t this a logical follow up question?

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Is this a reasonable question?”

      Yes.. because quite often even their own data shows they are lying.

  5. R Shearer says:

    Good point, if anything, they’ve juiced the data to enhance warming. Nevertheless, it’s perfectly reasonable to use an opponents statements against that opponent.

  6. Billy Liar says:

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386c/p1386c.pdf

    See page C65 of the link for a 1976 Landsat image of the Zachariæ Isstrøm and Nioghalvfjerdsbrae.

    Your satellite photo is of Nioghalvfjerdsbrae and the 1976 image shows that the glacier has retreated very little in the last 40 years despite the branch to the north (Spaltegletscher) possibly having retreated somewhat more; it is difficult to see where that glacier ends and the fast ice begins in the 1976 image.

  7. Jim Hunt says:

    Since we’re not in Kansas anymore, is there any chance somebody could magic a picture of Zachariæ Isstrøm out of a hat here?

    • pmc47025 says:

      Zachariæ Isstrøm? There’s this:
      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=87086

      I couldn’t find any references older than 1999 though, so, I am not yet frightened enough to buy any carbon credits. The slightly longer history probably looks like the Jakobshavn glacier? It doesn’t look like CO2 is the control knob for that one:
      https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=3395

    • AndyG55 says:

      Can you provide a magnifying glass.?

      Its such an itsy bitsy part of the Greenland coast.

      1976 was the very coldest part of the AMO cycle.

      Yet if you look at this picture, you will be hard pressed to find much difference at all.

      Again Jimbo the CON merchant, and his Arctic SCARE buddies, are trying to make a mountain out of a grain of sand..

      Yet Jimbo, being the base-level LIAR he is, is totally unable to admit that the Arctic and Greenland had MUCH LESS ice during the first 3/4 of the Holocene, and that the only reason there is currently SO MUCH glacier and sea ice is because we are really not that much above THE COLDEST PERIOD IN THE LAST 10,000 YEARS

  8. Jim Hunt says:

    Andy – Since you’ve finally managed to locate the right glacier perhaps Tony should now replace his animation with one based on the high res images kindly provided by NASA?

    PMC – Would it surprise you to learn that the supplementary materials to the Mouginot et al. paper referred to in Tony’s first link contains a series of Landsat images of Zachariæ Isstrøm going back to 1975?

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2015/11/11/science.aac7111.DC1

    • AndyG55 says:

      YAWN !

      Once you have the GUTS to admit that Arctic sea ice and Greenland glacier are BOTH anomalously HIGH compared to the rest of the Holocene, then you might be worth more than a remote slagging.

      Until then , all ANYONE can say is that you are monumental LYING PROPAGANDIST.

      Admit the TRUTH.. for ONCE IN YOUR PUTRID LIFE.
      I DARE you. !!!

    • AndyG55 says:

      The thing is, that you KNOW that the mid-late 1970’s was the base of the AMO, and that is all you have to support your BASELESS Arctic/Greenland glacier HYSTERIA.

      DENY the facts all you want…… Its what you do.

      LYING is embedded in your very soul.

    • pmc47025 says:

      Jim – You knew where to find ancient images of Zachariæ Isstrøm and still asked. No, I am not surprised.

      One glacier has retreated over a very short time period, the glacier next door doesn’t appear to have changed much lately, and no evidence the retreating one was stable before humans started pumping plant food into the atmosphere. I’m terrified! Please tell me how to fix this! Oh, right, taxes and carbon credits.

Leave a Reply

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