Visualizing Government Arctic Sea Ice Fraud

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

– Upton Sinclair

Government agencies like NOAA, NASA and NSIDC start their sea ice graphs in 1979, in order to make it look like there is a linear decline in sea ice.

ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2016.pdf

NOAA claims they don’t have satellite data before 1979, but they are lying. The 1990 IPCC report showed NOAA satellite data back to 1973, which was much lower than 1979.

1990 IPCC Report

In fact, there is reasonably good ice data going back to the 1920’s, which shows that ice extent was very low in the 1940’s and 1950’s.

Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect

This agrees with historical accounts at the time.

The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times

I combined the DOE and IPCC graphs, to show what government agencies are up to. They start their linear graphs at the century maximum sea ice extent.

Then fraudsters like John Cook release fake graphs like this, so that they can blame it on “human activity”

Human activity is driving retreat of Arctic sea ice

I do agree that human activity is driving Arctic sea ice fraud by government agencies. There is zero evidence that CO2 emissions have any influence on Arctic ice however.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to Visualizing Government Arctic Sea Ice Fraud

  1. Jim Hunt says:

    Tony – Where do NOAA claim, and I quote:

    “They don’t have satellite data before 1979”

    Do NSIDC claim the same thing?

    • tonyheller says:

      “the melt area is the largest since the beginning of the satellite era in 1979”
      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201207

      • Jim Hunt says:

        At the risk of repeating myself:

        “Do NSIDC claim the same thing?”

        • tonyheller says:

          They have used the same terminology many times.

        • Marty says:

          NSIDC data is nothing like the original data used by the IPCC.

          The only spot NSIDC data matches IPCC 1990 in 2 years 72 73, the rest is complete different because NSIDC have altered the crap out of their data

      • Brad says:

        They also go on to admit that the observed melting is not unusual.

        “ice core records indicate that this type of melting occurs about once every 150 years.”

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Tony – Why do you claim the graph that you attribute to John Cook is “fake”?

        • Sunsettommy says:

          Jim,

          Did you even bother to see the chart in the link?

          “Mean sea ice anomalies, 1953-2012: Sea ice extent departures from monthly means for the Northern Hemisphere. For January 1953 through December 1979, data have been obtained from the UK Hadley Centre and are based on operational ice charts and other sources. For January 1979 through December 2012, data are derived from passive microwave (SMMR / SSM/I). Image by Walt Meier and Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.”

          Vague….. 1953-1979

          “For January 1953 through December 1979, data have been obtained from the UK Hadley Centre and are based on operational ice charts and other sources. “

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Why do you claim the graph that you attribute to John Cook is “fake”?”

          Its John Cook.. so its the obvious starting theory.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Actually , from Cook, lying and fakery and climate change denail would nearly be at the “law” stage, almost up with there Jimbo and griff……. probability = 1

          • AndyG55 says:

            darn typing

            “climate change DENIAL”

        • Jim Hunt says:

          It seems that, unlike Tony, Tommy managed to follow the link that said “from National Snow and Ice Data Center”

          http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

          Hence, contrary to Tony’s assertion in his OP, the graph isn’t “fake” and it wasn’t “released by John Cook”.

          • AndyG55 says:

            The graph IS FAKE, Jimbo…. just like your putrid little web site.

            EVERYTHING about it DENIES climate history

            Jimbo is at the very peak of CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL, aren’t you Jimbo.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Want to know how we KNOW it is absolutely fake, Jimbo..

            Because you have arrived and are trying to say it isn’t.

            That is more than enough proof for any rational person to KNOW it is FAKE.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            I somehow doubt your evidence would hold up in a court of law Andy.

            However you could plausibly describe Tony’s Figure 5.2 as “fake”, but a graph on the official NSIDC web site?

            I think not!

          • Sunsettommy says:

            Read it again, Jim. It is vague for the period from 1953-1979.

            ” For January 1953 through December 1979, data have been obtained from the UK Hadley Centre and are based on operational ice charts and other sources.”

          • Marty says:

            Jim probably denies D-O oscillations too that show temps warming 8-10c in a few decades.

            Compare that to alleged 1.2c in 130 years.

            ugh UGH! Thinking is hard for alarmists.

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Tony – I take it that in your extensive search for sea ice “satellite data before 1979” you never stumbled across this page on the NSIDC web site?

        https://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0009_esmr_seaice.gd.html

        Daily and monthly averaged sea ice concentrations from the Nimbus-5 Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR) are available for the Arctic and Antarctic from 12 December 1972 through 31 December 1976 at 25 km gridded resolution. Raw data were reprocessed to include ocean masks that reduce weather effects and coastal contamination, and to include a 15 percent ice threshold.

  2. Knut A. Lian says:

    Very interesting. Would it be possible to make a continuous graph from 1920-2017? Then it would be easier to compare the 1940-60 low with today’s low.

  3. Gary845 says:

    Goodness – the John Cook produced graph imagines that none of us ever saw this, as well:

    • AndyOz says:

      Crikey!
      That’s shows 1968 lower than 1974 which we know was lower than 1979.
      I wonder what NOOA’s excuse is?

      The dog ate my historical data?

  4. Brad says:

    When exposing duplicity and fraud, it may be best to avoid using quotes from the yellow journalist Upton Sinclair.

  5. neal s says:

    Just read a depressingly untruthful article
    http://gizmodo.com/the-arctic-is-in-such-bad-shape-that-scientists-propose-1792384678

    I am sending ryan an email directing him here. I don’t expect anything good to come of it … but you never know.

  6. Stewart Pid says:

    Griff must have his panties in such a knot that he had a coronary …. no comment so far.
    Although I see that Jim crawled out from under his rock.

  7. Griff says:

    I’m glad it was mentioned there are good records going back to the 1920s, because that allows me to mention that all records have been collated back to the 1850s and that at no point in the 20s, 30s or 40s was the sea ice as low as it is now…

    • Sunsettommy says:

      No Griff, your “records” ,back to the 1850’s are very LOW RESOLUTION proxy data!

      • Griff says:

        Detailed ice extent records plotted by Canadian, Soviet, Danish and Norwegian weather bureau and shipping, cold war sub plots from beneath the ice… all the available data has been collected. There is masses of it and its of good quality.

        And without it, you can’t make any claims on the ice extent being higher/lower in the past, can you?

        • Sunsettommy says:

          Griff, you SHOWN why your claim lacked credibility over at the WUWT blog. The 1850 to 1900 part is indeed low resolution.

          The “data” is indeed low resolution, because large ares of the ocean were never sampled,that ships intermittently samples the water,using non standard measurement methods.

          You have no statistical math skills at all kid.

    • Gator says:

      Ms Griff hates poor brown people, and thinks the Earth is only 167 years old.

      • Griff says:

        Really?

        You stoop that low?

      • gator69 says:

        I’m not the denier or perpetrator of leftist genocide, so in other words, I am not the lowlife.

        Ms Griff, you could spend your time spreading the truth that Lomborg cited at TED, or can continue advocating for the misallocation of resources that is starving 21,000 people to death every day.

        You can deny the truth all you like, while millions starve.

        You can deny facts about ice all you like, while millions starve.

        But you cannot accuse others of stooping low when you are assisting in genocide.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          It should be noted that Ms. Griff doesn’t seem to be a traditional racist.

          She doesn’t mind rich brown people in her Capitol city and their fashionable excesses. It’s the suffering poor brown people in faraway Districts she hates and starves to death. There’s just damn too many of them.

          She’s an archetypal Capitol citizen of the Hunger Games.

  8. Tom says:

    What is an “Standardized Anomaly?” Is that a derivative of homogenized data? And whether the answer to that be yes or no, what is the process of and rationalization for homogenizing data and/or standardizing anomalies? What argument does John Cook provide for doing so and why is his argument argument (in your assessment) a poor reason?

    Thanks Tony.

  9. Griff says:

    Tony

    I must address you directly on this…

    The actual sea ice extent in 1979 and in any year since is absolutely established as a fact and cannot have been faked…

    The data can be checked against satellite photos and the individual weather/ice warning services of US, Canada, Russia and Norway. The Russian Northern Seaway records… multiple sources.

    Not to mention that more than one satellite and country has tracked the extent data.

    There can be no doubt that sea ice extent has declined dramatically since 1979 and now is at a record low level in the years of the satellite record.

    that’s absolutely a fact and no one has faked any of that extent information, have they?

    Griff

    • tonyheller says:

      How can sea ice extent be at a record low in February? That would have to occur in September.

      A lot of MYI blew out of the Arctic during winters from 1988 to 2007. What does that have to do with CO2?

      • Griff says:

        A record low for the month of February.

        Is it not of concern that even winter ice is lower than ever before??

        • Griff says:

          And you didn’t answer me: is the extent record a matter of verifiable fact, yes or no?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “is the extent record a matter of verifiable fact, yes or no?’

            Most definitely an absolute LIE.

            Bio-data clearly indicates that the current level of Arctic sea is really quite high in comparison to Holocene average.

            Any more LIES you would like to try to spread?

            griff = level 1 CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Is it not of concern that even winter ice is lower than ever before??”

          1. It is NOT lower than ever before… . yet another monumental LIE from griff.

          2. Lower Arctic sea ice, if was ever to actually occur, would be nothing than BENEFICIAL for all people living up ther.

          Wildlife survived, and THRIVED during much lower sea ice levels in the first 3/4 of the Holocene.

          Or are you going to continue to DENY this well established FACT !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      “There can be no doubt that sea ice extent has declined dramatically since 1979”

      There is no doubt the late 1970’s was an extreme high for Arctic sea ice.

      The Icelandic sea ice clearly shows that., just as it shows a huge drop in sea ice in the 1930-1965 era, as shown by TH above.before

      Griff ALWAYS the denier of history.

      • Griff says:

        Relatively high, yes…

        But now it is much lower and keeping on down.

        It is lower than the 20s through 40s period.

        • AndyG55 says:

          BULLSHIT ,

          A simple calculation was shown earlier.

          Arctic history shows that 1920-1940 was LOWER

          You can see clearly that the 1920-1960 period was a period of lower sea ice.

          You are mentally disturbed, CLIMATE CHANGE DENYING LIAR, griff.

    • Robert Austin says:

      Griff,
      Do you deny the satellite records prior to 1979 as show in the FAR IPCC report?

  10. CheshireRed says:

    So NOAA specifically show ice records cherry picked from 1979 because ice extent was unusually high, but despite having previously published 70’s data they ignore the 1970’s when ice extent was lower, and then also ignore the 50’s and 40’s when they were even lower than the already low 1970’s. You just have to laugh otherwise you’d cry. Meanwhile the Guardian, UK MO, IPCC, NASA, NOAA and Uncle Tom Cobley and all claim this is legitimate ‘settled science’. Lol.

    It’s so wilful it can only be a deliberate intention to mislead, there can be no other explanation for such blatant ignoring of earlier data simply because it f*cks their theory. On the back of this misdirection hangs Green Blob jobs paying suitably vast salaries, research grants worth millions and government policies worth $billions. RICO indeed. You can’t say there’s not dark humour in this level of world class criminality, it’s brilliant. Al Capone will be spinning in his grave with envy.

    If there’s any justice in this world president Donald J Trump will rinse these cheats and liars out of their positions of influence and straight to the state pen’. For a very long stretch.

    • Griff says:

      But the ice extent has been steadily declining since 1979, hasn’t it?

      and is now at a record low since 1979, isn’t it?

      and that record low is lower than in the 20s thru 40s period, for which we have good records, is it not?

      so the ice is declining, yes?

  11. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    I suspect there may be an effect from diesel particulates too. There’s been a massive rise in diesel engine use in the last thirty years. All that albedo changing pm2.5 soot, which Tony has pointed out in several posts before.

    That is anthropogenic but isn’t CO2 related.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And with the increased use of wind turbines, the use of diesel generators will skyrocket.

      The AGW scammers ate so dumb.. basically everything they do has no effect or the opposite effect to what the wanted…

      …. except the decimation of economies…

      … and senior population reduction..

      • AndyG55 says:

        this keyboard is weird…. ate -> are.

      • Griff says:

        No it won’t -and the use of particulate producing coal power plants will fall. It has in the UK.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You are again displaying your ABJECT IGNORANCE.

          the UK has huge ranks of DEISEL generators for the many times that wind is useless

          A modern coal fired power station produces basically zero particulates.

          But when have FACTS ever been something you have been remotely interested in.!!!

          “It has in the UK.”

          and look at the energy poverty now ensuing…

          …as if you CARE. !!

          You really are at the very bottom of the human decency scale, aren’t you griff

  12. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    The climateers have in an endless stream predicted the ice would disappear.
    So why have not even a single scientist ever said that it is better than we thaught?
    They thaught it would have disappeared and is still there, so obviously it must be better than thaught.

    • Andy DC says:

      The word “scientists” makes me laugh. More like paid propagandists.

    • Griff says:

      It is going… and quite quickly on a geological time scale.

      do you have any evidence it is NOT declining?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Plenty of evidence that it is NOWHERE NEAR the levels of the first 3/4 of the Holocene..

        …you know, the period before the LIA.

        You continue to be an avid DENIER of climate change history.

        You are right at the top of the list of CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS…..

        … up there with Jimbo the clown.

        • Griff says:

          We aren’t back then.

          What concerns us is its current rate of decline towards a likely ice free summer arctic ocean…. with current extent lower than the previous ‘cycle’ in the 20s thru 40s.

          The reasons for the previous low ice in the Eemian were entirely related to the Earth’s orbit, which has since moved on to a different part of its (Milankovitch) cycle. The early Holocene is utterly irrelevant to current conditions.

          • Latitude says:

            Who is “us”?

          • Sunsettommy says:

            Ha ha ha,

            there it is folks, Griff doesn’t care that it was much lower for most of the Holocene. That Polar Bears and Eskimos lived through it.That the ecosystem didn’t crash. That super molecule has nothing to do with it since it stayed around the 260-280 level for most of the inter glacial period.

            He want to cry over a tiny time frame of a much higher than average ice pack of today,because he is a confirmed warmist bigot.

          • AndyG55 says:

            DENIAL of climate history.. the only way you can support you brain-washed belief in you fake AGW religion

            Cherry pick the extreme of 1979 as the starting point.. and DENY any other part of the AMO cycle.

            You do know what the AMO is, don’t you griff… or are you remaining forever WILFULLY IGNORANT???

          • AndyG55 says:

            “The early Holocene is utterly irrelevant to current conditions.”

            run and hide from the facts you don’t like, hey griff.

            They are highly relevant because they show the conditions before the plunge into the Little Ice Age.. the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years, which the world has just managed to crawl out of.

            Arctic sea ice levels are STILL anomalously high compared to all but that COLDEST of periods, that’s because the world is only a small, but highly beneficial, bump in temperature above that bleak period.

            You need to get out of your heated inner city latte ghetto, go to Siberia, and see how you like the climate there.

            Get some rationality and perspective into your cotton-wool wrapped meaningless existence.

  13. Joe Lawrence says:

    I very much enjoyed reading this string ….Why does there seem to be very little mention of solar activity as it relates to climate change? And why is there very little mention of the effects of volcanic activity on climate change? I have read it has been estimated that the Mt. St Helens eruption emitted more C02 into the atmosphere than all man made activity to date up to that point. There were 66 major volcanic eruptions in the 1900’s with 6 the size of Mt. St Helens or larger

    • Griff says:

      Because solar activity is ‘low’ and has been for a decade and is not a prime driver of the current climate…

      Because human produced CO2 vastly exceeds volcanic emissions (and no, there are not a lot of undersea volcanoes producing CO2 we don’t know about)

      simply the sun and volcanoes, while climate drivers, are not major influences at this time.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Because solar activity is ‘low’ and has been for a decade and is not a prime driver of the current climate…”

        LIAR…. and a moron.

        Do your really think with the world being 70% surface area H2O it responses immediately…. a lag of some 11-15 years has been identified by REAL SCIENCE….

        … ie , the sort you know absolutely NOTHING about

        • Griff says:

          and yet for the past decade we have been seeing rising global temps…

          • Sunsettommy says:

            They rise because the warmist bigots fiddles with the surface temperature data over and over.

            Meanwhile Satellite data shows a very different picture,but that would impinge on your warmist religion beliefs.

            You are willing to lie to yourself every day.

          • neal s says:

            And yet there are hardly any all-time high temp records being broken. Whenever there are claims of high temp records being broken, it is only over a much shorter timespan. I wonder why that is? Probably because it is an inconvenient truth that it is NOT actually hotter than it ever was.

            What you are seeing is claims of rising global temps based on ‘adjusted’ data. You are so gullible for believing the lies, especially when there is so much here pointing at the truth.

            I think it time for another Swift-like satire about ‘gullibles travels’ … the journey of a confirmed CAGW believer who refuses to believe he has been lied to over and over and over again.

          • AndyG55 says:

            LIES again.. LIES is all you seem to have. !!!

            DENIAL of facts is the only way you support your waste of a climate religion.

            Apart from the El Nino, there has been NO WARMING since the end of the previous El Nino in 2001.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Because human produced CO2 vastly exceeds volcanic emissions (and no, there are not a lot of undersea volcanoes producing CO2 we don’t know about)”

        MORE BULLSHIT.

        Yet a couple of years ago a whole island chain just appeared.

        Your base-level IGNORANCE is way past the stage of being even slightly humorous

        • Griff says:

          “According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. ”

          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

          • Sunsettommy says:

            Nature emits about 96% of the total yearly CO2.which leaves the rest with Mankind.

            You are as usual wrong.

          • neal s says:

            A February 2013 estimate by a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology was just shy of 600 million tons of CO2 emitted by volcanic degassing.

            And there is now evidence that volcanoes thought to be inactive still make substantial CO2 contributions. As much as half of what active volcanoes contribute. This would skyrocket the number of degassing peaks to more than 500.

          • gator69 says:

            Termites alone produce more greenhouse gases than mankind…

            Now researchers report that termites, digesting vegetable matter on a global basis, produce more than twice as much carbon dioxide as all the world’s smokestacks.

            Between their methane and carbon dioxide production, some estimates put the number at ten times what humans produce. For every human, there is estimated to be over 1000 pounds of termites.

            Interesting trivia, but still not worth sacrificing 21,000 people daily.

      • Pethefin says:

        Poor Griff, you should start looking for help since it looks like you are about experience a true wake-up call:
        http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/02/14/supreme-court-justice-samuel-alito-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-pollutant/

        • Griff says:

          I think the subject – which you are trying to avoid -is the ice.

          The ice extent records are watertight aren’t they? you can’t dispute the record from 1979 on and you can’t dispute the decline it shows.

          • Latitude says:

            This is like saying you have the flu and your high temp is normal….

          • gator69 says:

            Ms Griff continues to cherry pick dates, while another 21,000 innocent humans starve to death, again today.

            The one fact we cannot dispute is that resources would be better spent saving human lives. But then Ms Griff apparently hates poor brown people.

          • Pethefin says:

            LOL, the one who brought CO2 to the table was you Griff. You are truly dim troll.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yet you totally ignore climate history and Arctic sea ice history before the LIA. and around 1920-1950

            Griff.. CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER, #2

        • Gail Combs says:

          Griffy is talking about WEATHER 2017 minus 1979 is ONLY 38 years. Hardly a full climate cycle which would be a minimum of 14-1500 years. (one D-O/Bond cycle)

          So as Andy keeps saying Griffy is a Climate Denier because she doesn’t even understand the difference between weather aka signal noise and climate.

          Griffy, these are your REAL climate changes — Dansgaard-Oeschger events — and they are 8 to 16C changes within a decade or two. So quit hyperventilating over a couple hundreths of a degree change.

  14. Dan Zielinski says:

    Wow. Tony – you should sell tickets to this thread! Fabulously interesting.

Leave a Reply

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