Alarmists’ Arctic Nightmare Continues

While climate alarmists have been telling endless lies about record heat and melting in the Arctic and Greenland this winter, thick ice has been pushing into the East Siberian, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas – which determine the summer minimum extent.

DMI Modelled ice thickness

Ice extent is nearly identical to all recent years.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

And Greenland is blowing away all records for ice gain.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Climate alarmists are not scientists, they are not honest, and they need to be defunded.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Alarmists’ Arctic Nightmare Continues

  1. Jack Daws says:

    If they’re not honest then why are you linking to their data? Hahahaha!

    The first link even goes against your claim that arctic ice volume hadn’t changed, you need to look closely at your own sources before making incorrect claims.

    • tonyheller says:

      Moron alert

      • Gail Combs says:

        Guy can’t even read….

        • RAH says:

          Yep, great example of the typical ignorance of the masses that believe in AGW/human caused catastrophic climate change. Can’t even read a link and forget about clicking on one before showing his ignorance.

    • Sunsettommy says:


      You made a statement you didn’t back up.

      Where is your evidence?

      • Jim Hunt says:

        You’re deaf, dumb and blind too then Tommy? Like Jack said:

        “The first link even goes against your claim that arctic ice volume hadn’t changed”

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Ice extent is nearly identical to all recent years.”

          A true statement.

          The error margins would mean that there is no significant difference from any of the previous years.

          in 1000 km³ approx. volumes from DMI.

          2008 … 22
          2009 … 22.5
          2010 … 24
          2011 … 22
          2012 … 21 (lowest)
          2013 … 22
          2014 … 23
          2015 … 23
          2016 … 21.5
          2017 … 21.5

          Jack was wrong, you are wrong

          The Link CONFIRMS Tony’s statement.

          Eat you eat again, Jimbo

        • sam says:

          even if that PIOMAS chart is accurate and there is this ‘global melting ice problem’ and’s SUCH a big problem in this world that we gotta spend billions on this desperate attempt to undo that terrible few centimeters of sea level rise that happened in the last decade.. We’re obviously still way below the sea levels of a mere 1000 years ago.

          “There is plenty of evidence found in the Dutch archives that shows that over the centuries, parts of the Netherlands disappeared beneath the water during these warm periods, only to appear again when the climate turned colder. The famous Belgian city of Brugge, once known as “Venice of the North,” was a sea port during the warm period that set Europe free from the dark ages (when temperatures were much colder), but when temperatures began to drop with the onset of the little ice age, the ocean receded and now Brugge is ten miles away from the coastline.”

          • Gail Combs says:

            Notice the area where Roman sea ports are now inland is tectonically stable according to NASA.
            List of Roman Sea Ports found inland
            (Has great pictures and maps.)

            For the areas occupied by the Romans it was tectonically stable (pretty close to zero) or actually sinking! “..the pivot point is rather abrupt; Scotland is still rising due to the rebound effect which is correspondingly sinking England 2 millimetres into the North Sea each year.

            A NASA model of current surface elevation change due to post-glacial rebound and the reloading of sea basins with water. Canada, Northern Europe, and Antarctica are all currently rebounding at a rate of a few millimetres per year. More water in the oceans as a result of ice sheet melting is slowly depressing sea basins. Satellites are used to observe differences over time. ” Glacial Isostatic Adjustment

            Red is rebound or rising land
            blue is sinking

          • Gail Combs says:

            MAP of Post glacial rebound in the British Isles

            Green is rising
            Orange is stable
            Red is sinking

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Jack, what about the last TEN years of incorrect predictions of no summer ice,made by alleged Arctic experts.

      The ones they have been wrong over and over?

    • Colorado Wellington says:


      Do you not understand that you discredit the cause by leaving such a stupid comment?

      Come back and fix your mistake by making a solid progressive argument.

  2. Sunsettommy says:


    Want to explain away this new science paper?

    New Paper Indicates There Is More Arctic Sea Ice Now Than For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years

    There is a gorgeous chart in the link.

    • Gail Combs says:

      AND another resident troll.

      (Good paper)

    • AndyG55 says:

      Its great to see a paper using the Iceland sea ice graph I have posted so many times :-)

    • Andy says:

      I can’t see the link to the actual paper on that website so I have asked the owner to post it.

      I did find a paper by Ruediger Stein for 2017 but does have same content as quoted on the website.

      So I can’t explain this new science paper.


    • Andy says:

      Seems like this might be Fake News.

      That chart in the link doesn’t seem to be in the original paper.

      Also the comments on the paper do not seem to match what the paper is saying.

      I’m asking the website owner more info on what he stated to see if it matches up.


  3. Andy says:

    The problem with any Arctic winter extent is that the extent is limited on most sides due to land mass. Hence the “proper” extent is limited to a great extent. And it means fluctuations on Atlantic and Pacific sides have more effect than they would have if those land masses were not there.

    So I don’t rate winter max one way or another to be honest. It does not tell us much compared to the Arctic summer . You can see from the Charctic graph the summer has more chance of showing proper trends as not as much land mass interacting nowadays when the ice is mainly away from land.


    • AndyG55 says:

      No, summer ice extent is at the whims of the weather and particularly the AMO.

      You justification for looking at the summer extent is null and void (like most of your arguments are)

      Best to look at the trend in the whole years sea ice extent.. no cherry picking required.

      And since the AMO peaked in 2006..


      • Bill says:

        … no cherry picking this data only goes to 2006?
        Here is the whole data-set going back to 1979. Yes, there is still ice in the arctic but the trend is alarming.

        • Steven Fraser says:

          Bill, what do you find alarming about the trend you see?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Nothing alarming at all Bill, unless your mind is stuck in the tiny period since 1979. You do know that 1979 was an EXTREME level, don’t you, up there with the massive high levels of the LIA?

          Its actually still well above pre-LIA levels, and probably around the same as in the 1920-1950’s

    • AndyG55 says:

      And tell us.. why did you turn off 2006, 2015, 2016….

      LYING by omission, like Jimbo and griff always do, hey.

      • Andy says:

        I didn’t turn off anything fuckwit, I just posted the link to their site. You are supposed to be looking at the depth of the shaded area, not the lines, that’s a clue.

        The grey shaded regions extend deeper in the summer, showing the increased summer variability, which was my point, over winter, which is capped by being landlocked.

        You really are as thick as pigshit I am coming to realise.


        • AndyG55 says:


          Oh dear , you poor petulant little child. 5 year old tantrum.. much ! :-).

          Being likened to your troll mates griff and jimbo is what set you off , isn’t it.

          Shaded areas are based on the rising at of the AMO.

          Didn’t you know that?

        • AndyG55 says:

          And no, there is plenty of space down past Iceland, and outside the Bering Strait where Arctic sea ice can and does expand.

          That is why the Iceland Ice index is interesting

          It shows clearly than 1920-1950 were “low” years, while the late 1970s was a period of extremes.

          Waiting for another very funny tantrum from you, oh petulant one.

  4. Andy says:

    I’m sorry but the ice extent in the middle of the Arctic basic in summer is further away than the AMO than where the ice extent is in winter. So the AMO must have more effect in winter than in summer as is closer. Or can you show data otherwise?

    Show me a scientific paper which shows AMO affects summer ice extent more than winter. Have you just made that up to try some counter argument?


  5. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    Could anyone tell me what the significance of the polar ice is?
    The simple answer would be that a warmer world would mean less sea ice.
    That is fair, like a warmer world could mean less and shorter snow cover.
    The big question is still, in what way would a lower ice extent influence the climate.
    According to DMI there is not a simple connection between sea ice and temperature, so how would sea ice extent influence climate, if it does. And is sea ice extent a good measure of global warming?

    • Gail Combs says:

      The short answer is there is no direct connection between sea ice and ‘global temperature’ because sea ice is dependent on ocean currents and ocean currents oscillate.

      The 2017 paper at no Tricks Zone:
      Holocene variability in sea ice cover, primary production, and Pacific-Water inflow and climate change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (Arctic Ocean)


      In this study, we present new detailed biomarker-based sea ice records from two sediment cores recovered in the Chukchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea. These new biomarker data may provide new insights on processes controlling recent and past sea ice changes. The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP. This Late Holocene trend in sea ice change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas seems to be contemporaneous with similar changes in sea ice extent recorded from other Arctic marginal seas. The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice (and surface-water productivity) are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long-term decrease in summer insolation. The short-term centennial variability observed in the high-resolution Middle Holocene record is probably related to solar forcing. Our new data on Holocene sea ice variability may contribute to synoptic reconstructions of regional to global Holocene climate change based on terrestrial and marine archives.

      Earlier studies:
      Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

      …. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded

      A 10,000-Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea-Ice Variability


      We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8,500 and 6,000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2,500 years and is linked to an increase in ice export from the western Arctic and higher variability of ice-drift routes. When the ice was at its minimum in northern Greenland, it greatly increased at Ellesmere Island to the west. The lack of uniformity in past sea-ice changes, which is probably related to large-scale atmospheric anomalies such as the Arctic Oscillation, is not well reproduced in models. This needs to be further explored, as it is likely to have an impact on predictions of future sea-ice distribution.

      Looks to me like the the Arctic Oscillation (AO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) define the Arctic sea ice.

    • Andy says:

      If the earth was entirely black and the earth was entirely white would the climate be affected in different ways?

      There is your answer


      • Andy says:

        And to quote the first paragraph of the article Gail seems to have failed to read fully, but has quoted on the abstract ….

        “Arctic sea ice, with it’s strong seasonal variability, is a critical component in the global climate system, contributing to changes in the Earths albedo, primary productivity and deep water formation”

        So actually the article stresses the connection between sea ice and climate, Gail just couldn’t be bothered paying $6 to read more than the abstract…



        • AndyG55 says:

          Ever time you post, more and more of your ignorance is exposed..

          Quite funny !

          Please keep posting so we can find the real depths of that ignorance. :-)

        • Gail Combs says:

          We often hear it said that the loss of Arctic sea ice is more important than gains of sea ice in the Antarctic. This is typical Dis-information.

          In October, 2013, the Antarctic sea ice extents was at a record high maximum at right at 19.5 Million square kilometers. over 1.5 Mkm^2 of “excess” southern sea ice extents. ALL of this “excess” sea ice was between latitude 60 south and latitude 59 south and covered an area about HALF the size of Greenland, larger than Hudson Bay (Also centered at latitude 60 north)

          Did we hear about this??? HELL NO!
          Instead all we get is yammering about the Arctic sea ice disappearing.

          At today’s sea ice extents, the “edge” of the Arctic sea is a tiny ring about latitude 78 -82 north in mid-September. The “edge” of Antarctic’s sea ice minimum is also a “ring” – but that ring is about latitude 66 south. Much closer to the equator, much more energy reflected from the Antarctic sea ice, right Andy?

          Now, at maximum extents, the “edge” Arctic sea ice is at its closest point to the equator is only down to 72 north, not even as close to the equator as the minimum Antarctic sea ice. But at its maximum, Antarctic sea ice extents is much, much higher at 59.2 to 59.0 latitude. Closer to the equator than even the most southern tip of Greenland!

          At the equinoxes, when both Arctic and Antarctic are both hit by the same solar intensity, the Antarctic Sea Ice receives between 2x (Feb-March) to 5x (September-October) the energy that the Arctic sea ice receives. Thus, to reflect equal energy into space, the “gain” of even 1.0 Mkm^2 of southern sea ice extents needs to be balanced by a loss 2 to 5 TIMES LARGER in the Arctic.

          Worse, the Antarctic sea ice minimum is exposed to significantly MORE solar radiation at the peak of the yearly solar cycle in January-February than the arctic sea ice minimum in August September, when the solar energy production is lower. (Solar minimum is 5 July each year, when the Arctic ice is exposed. But Antarctic sea ice – even at its minimum extents, is much more exposed in January.)

          To recap
          Albedo of Arctic sea ice changes only based on day-of-year. Albedo starts high at 0.82, stays steady at 0.82 until May, decreases through the summer to a low of 0.46, then rises again to 0.82 until about September, then remains at 0.82 until the end of December. This is from Dr Curry’s measured data.

          1. Albedo of sea ice does NOT change with latitude.

          2. Albedo of open ocean changes with every HOUR of every day as the solar elevation angle changes each minute. Specifically, open ocean albedo does NOT change explicitly with latitude, but latitude affects the overall SEA change over day-of-year AND latitude and hour-of-day (HRA), These changes are based on the earth’s declination and geometry and is strictly and specifically defined. But, Hour-of-day and day-of-year CANNOT be separated from latitude.

          3. Opposite the above, the yearly maximum solar radiation occurs in early January at 1410 watts.m^2. The minimum solar top-of-atmosphere radiation occurs July 3, when the Arctic sea ice is decreasing strongly day-by-day, BUT while Arctic sea ice is between min and max. Roughly, the edge of Arctic sea ice is between 74 and 76 north.

          At the point of maximum solar radiation at TOA, the ANTARCTIC sea ice is is a wide “ring” slowly varying from 59.2 south (last October under 1370 watts/m^2) to about 64 south latitude (in January under 1410 watts/m^2) to a minimum sea ice extent at 3 Mkm^2 (in March at 70 south latitude back down to 1360 watts/m^2). So, when the TOA solar radiation is at its maximum, ARCTIC sea ice is dark. When the top-of-atmosphere radiation is at its max, Antarctic sea ice is not at its minimum.

          Net effect: As a whole, Antarctic sea ice is MUCH, MUCH closer to the equator every day of the year.

          Overall, increased heat losses from open ocean in the Arctic (when Arctic sea ice is at a minimum in late August-September) are much greater than increased heat absorbed into that open water. More sea ice loss in the Arctic => More heat loss from the planet and a net cooler planet.

          The opposite happens in the Antarctic: More sea ice around Antarctica means more heat reflected from the planet and a net cooler planet.

          It is not really necessary to “combine” or group the other two parts of the Antarctic

          Up north, the Arctic Ocean STARTS at 70 north latitude, and this IS the southern limit of the Arctic Ocean. Essentially ALL “Arctic sea ice” then cycles between 70 north latitude (at MAXIMUM extents at 14.0 Mkm^2) and 80 north (if 4.0 Mkm^2). In the future, this minimum could go even closer to the pole: if there were 1.0 Mkm^2, all the arctic sea ice is a little beanie cap from the pole to 85 north latitude.

          The Antarctic sea ice is INCREASING at all times of the year.
          The Antarctic sea ice cycles between a minimum of of 4.0 Mkm^2 at latitude 70 south, to a maximum of of 19.5 Mkm^2 at latitude 59.2 south.

          The Arctic sea ice only varies between 72 north and 82 north.

          On EVERY day of the year, Antarctic sea ice is exposed to 2 to 5 times the radiation that Arctic sea ice receives, and therefore Antarctic sea ice is 2 to 5 times MORE important to the earth’s heat balance than the Arctic sea ice.
          (H/T RACookPE1978)
          “…So we find that, adding the two poles together, this year [2013] there has been much more ice at the summer solstice than the 30-year mean. <b.Therefore, much more sunlight has been reflected than usual, and not less as is implied.…” link

        • Gail Combs says:

          This is why I ignored ARCTIC albedo.

          “…Rather than an “arctic sea ice amplification” the numbers show that – during the late melting season under today’s conditions, every square meter of open ocean north of 76-82 north LOSES more heat on a daily basis than does sea-ice-covered arctic waters under the same air conditions!

          Late melting season sea ice is dirty (Thanks China) and the albedo is calculated below by RACook.

          RACookPE1978 has a “spreadsheet copy” of a spreadsheet he has for all latitudes for the actual radiation on to a horizontal surface at 12:00. This is the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE solar radiation. Every other minute of the day, solar radiation levels will be less.

          The second assumption about Arctic Amplification, and easily the second most important assumption in the entire CAGW religion, is how the CAGW dogma assumes the albedo change as the polar icecap reduces will affect future climate. Sea Ice vs Open Ocean albedo does matter, and, in truth, really deserves a long conversation in its own entire thread, but let’s look at few important things.

          One. Continuously increasing positive Antarctic Sea Ice anomalies between 70 south latitudes and 59 south latitudes every day of the year for the past 15 years DO affect the world’s heat balance, but Arctic sea ice declines since 1979 – which occur between 78 north and 85 north in September each year do NOT affect the earth;’s heat balance.

          Two. Arctic sea ice albedo DOES change routinely over the year, and is lowest during the yearly June-July-August melt season. Actual Arctic sea ice is NOT the pristine Wikipedia-approved laboratory values you so often see quotes: 0.95, 0.90, 0.86, etc) Actual measured Arctic sea ice (Curry, JGR 2001, Applications of SHEBA/FIRE Data to Evaluation of Snow/Ice Albedo Parametrization) is available for 13 years now, but seldom accurately called out. Figure 1 of Curry’s measurements shows the following:
          From DOY = 1 (1 January) to 133 (May 14), albedo is basically that of new snow over old ice. 0.8228
          From DOY = 134 to 278, albedo decreases from 0.82 down to at minimum curve fit at 0.460 on Day 206 (July 26), then increasing back to Day 278 (Oct 6).
          From DOY 279 – 365 (6 Oct – 31 Dec), measured Arctic sea ice albedo returns to that same snow-covered ice value of 0.82
          Numerically, this is a flat line = 0.8228 until DOY 133, a sinusoid dropping to a low point = 0.460 at DOY 206, and a second flat line after DOY 279 until 365: The sea ice albedo best-fit curve is
          sea_ice_albedo = 0.06803 + 0.02015 *cos(0.03561 * DOY – 4.1809)
          Actual data points scatter somewhat of course, but the measured lowest arctic albedo was 0.386 on DOY 223. Next lowest measured albedo was 0.41 on DOY = 208.

          Three. Of the 19.5 million square kilometers of Antarctic Sea Ice, all but a little bit 3.0 Mkm^2 immediately around the continent melts every Nov-Dec-January (Antarctic summer, Arctic winter). Thus, Antarctic sea ice is always “first-year” ‘ice, and ice thinner and cleaner (with greater quantities of fresh snow from the near-continuous storms around Cape Horn) than the multi-year (darker) Arctic sea ice. Until more measurements are published, that 0.82 albedo is valid all year.

          Four. Sea ice DOES reflect slightly more energy into space all year than does open ocean water, but the actual open ocean albedo is NOT the very dark, pessimistic foreboding but Wikipedia-approved 0.061. Now, understand that the “standard” 0.061 water albedo IS correct, but ONLY for very diffuse light under completely clouded skies.

          So, if the skies are cloudy the open ocean albedo is low, BUT the top of the clouds DO reflect some 30% of the potential solar energy present, the clouds absorb some 30% of the potential solar energy present, and so only 30% of the potential solar energy can be absorbed by the open ocean.

          Five. Do not ever let anybody conn you into using the “pure physics” laboratory-theoretical pristine-perfectly-calm conditions for a perfect-reflecting pure-water surface Fresnel equations either! THOSE values are NOT correct in the real world at any time.

          Rather, actual open-ocean direct-sunlight clear-sky measured-albedos – YES, WITH REAL OCEAN WAVES ! – have been available for many years, but these are seldom used: Most importantly, they CANNOT be used in “average” monthly “average albedo” tables or annual albedo summaries. See, solar absorption into the ocean (or ice) and solar energy reflection from the ocean (or ice) is a constant, minute-by-minute surface interaction very dependent on the latitude, amount of clouds and percent of clear sky, atmospheric air mass (how much light is absorbed merely passing through the even a “perfect atmosphere” to get down to the ocean’s surface), atmospheric clarity, and the day-of-year, solar declination angle, hour-of-day. The latter three combine to define the ever-changing solar elevation angle SEA each minute of each hour of each day.

          (SEA is also written as solar zenith angle SZA in many papers = which is the angle DOWN from the vertical to the sun’s position. SEA is the angle of the sun UP from the horizon to the sun. I will use only SEA to keep one consistent term in use. Many building and solar panel calc’s require plotting azimuth angles for each minute, but – since we are only talking flat surfaces of ice and water at the earth’s sea level, we will ignore the solar azimuth angle and altitude albedo corrections.)

          So, what is this “measured open-waters, clear-sky, direct-sunlight, wind-corrected” ocean albedo? Jin (GRL 2004) Figures 1-5 plot it rising from 0.035 at SEA = 71.8 to a 0.25 maximum (and a 0.21 average) at SEA = 9 degrees), but they only used the values as albedo vs SEA as look-up tables. Payne, (JAS, 1972) Figure 4 also plots it (rising from 0.040 at SEA = 74 to 0.44 at SEA = 8 degrees) but he does not offer a numeric solution.
          Rutledge and Schuster (P5.17, Multi-Year Observations of Ocean Albedo from a Rigid Marine Platform) plot both clear-sky direct radiation and cloudy sky (diffuse radiation) albedos in their Figure 4: If any can post that image, nothing will more strongly emphasize the difference between direct and diffuse radiation behavior reflecting from the real-world open ocean!
          Briegleb (1986) does give a equation, but it does not correct for wind conditions:

          albedo_direct_sun_clear skies = 0.026/(mu^1.7 +0.065) + 1.5*(mu-0.1)*(mu-0.5)*(mu-1.0)

          where mu = sine of that hour’s SEA. (Curry has quoted this equation in her papers.)
          Pegau and Paulson (International Glaciological Society, 2001, The Albedo of Arctic Leads in Summer) worked under the SHEBA ice platform with Curry’s team, and corrected Breigleb for wind speed:

          albedo_direct_sun_clear skies (SEA, wind) = 0.026/[(mu^1.7 + (-0.0002w^2 + 0.0076w+0.0266)] + 1.5*(mu-0.1)*(mu-0.5)*(mu-1.0)
          where mu (again) = sin(SEA) (or cos SZA) and w is in meters/sec.

          So, in September in the high Arctic when the solar elevation angle SEA is NEVER more than 8-10 degrees above the horizon at ANY time of the day when the sun is even visible, what is the measured clear sky open ocean albedo? Between 0.22 and 0.35.

          Not all that much different from the albedo of the “dirty sea ice” that is melting away. Yes, there is an increase in absorbed radiation in the Arctic above 78-82 latitude when sea ice is replaced by open ocean, BUT it is not very much difference in energy over the 12 hours of even potential sunlight!

          And, although the sun’s rays do heat the open water slightly during those daylight hours, the open water about 78-82 north loses MORE HEAT to the sky over the entire period of the 24 hour day through increased long-wave radiation, increased evaporation, increased convection, and increased conduction than does sea ice!

          Rather than an “arctic sea ice amplification” the numbers show that – during the late melting season under today’s conditions, every square meter of open ocean north of 76-82 north LOSES more heat on a daily basis than does sea-ice-covered arctic waters under the same air conditions!

          The exact opposite, unfortunate, is also true down south:
          Under today’s conditions at Antarctic sea ice extents between 60 south and 70 south latitudes, EVERY square kilometer of increased Antarctic sea ice at ANY time of year reflects more energy into space away from the planet, INCREASES total planet cooling! ~

      • AndyG55 says:

        “If the earth was entirely black and the earth was entirely white ”

        It isn’t either, you dopey putz.!!

        Why can’t you AGW trolls stick to what is rather than going off on hallucinogenic rants all the time !!

  6. HL Mencken says:

    Has anyone looked into the possibility that the Daws is one of the many
    Soros-paid trolls? That might explain a whole lot about why he is the first
    to post complaints about the veracity of the reports at this site. Reliable
    sources have it that the trolls sit around all day in the basements of their
    parents house (out of gainful employment) in their pajamas or dirty undershirts
    waiting to pounce on anything contradictory to their cherished belief structure.
    For their meager efforts they are paid cents on the dollar. If Daws is compensated
    to the the extent of a nickel a post, Soros is being shamefully defrauded.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Strictly anecdotally, I noticed over the years that a troll happens to be the first commenter on quite a few of Tony’s posts. I don’t know if any of them get paid but some give you the impression of religious fanatics following Tony’s new posts and rushing to be first to contradict him.

      • Kris Johanson says:

        That’s the best laugh I’ve had all day, thanks. I think that bible is even bigger than Bill Clinton’s bible he always used to carry prominently.

  7. Steven Fraser says:


    Thanks for pointing out the pattern in Greenland surface mass balance. If I extrapolate that the rest of the year curve parallels the mean, then the max will peak Jun 1 or 2 at 680 Gt, and then finish the year at 430 or so.

    Do you have any idea why the GRACE dataset has stopped updating? It seems to be stalled in mid 2016. Cheers!

Leave a Reply

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