July 4, 2017 : Coldest July Temperature Ever Recorded In The Northern Hemisphere

Greenland just set the record for coldest July temperature ever reported in the Northern Hemisphere at -33C.

summit:status:weather

Climate experts immediately responded to the record cold by saying Greenland is melting faster than expected at -33C.

Almost all of Greenland’s surface is gaining ice.

greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

In fact, Greenland has gained a near record amount of ice this year, and the ice is melting very slowly.

Climate science is not a science. It is a criminal venture intended to extort money from the public. Whatever they are doing, has nothing to do with science.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

220 Responses to July 4, 2017 : Coldest July Temperature Ever Recorded In The Northern Hemisphere

  1. John Silver says:

    The debate is over:

    ”Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment.”

    • CheshireRed says:

      What’s happened in the case? Updates, anyone, or a link to it? Cheers.

      • johnsmith12361 says:

        The ONLY undeniable truth to “Climate Change” or “Global Warning” is that politicians use it to scare people into believing it in order for them to line their pockets with cash.

        Leftists have no morals or ethics. Obama and his liberal cronies hate the Constitution and free market capitalism. He destroyed our economy with measures like the ACA and immigration amnesty. The Affordable Care Act has been nothing short of a disaster. My health insurance bill is up to $550/month. (Compare this to my $25/month car insurance from Insurance Panda or my $10/month renters insurance… both private enterprise!)

        Obama cared more about his climate change cult than he did keeping Americans safe.

        • Gtr Grrl says:

          You have ignored all facts. The economy is booming: record high employment, stock market, etc. You can’t read? Healthcare and car insurance aren’t even close to comparable. I read comments like this and understand just who elected this doofus to the highest office in land. And if you don’t understand the obvious, what would you know about climate change?

          • rob says:

            If you can’t accept the fact the climate has changed and will continue to change for as long as the Earth is around, you don’t understand the obvious. Tell me what happened to the climate prophets that predicted manmade Global Cooling in the 1970’s?. Answer: they got work writing bogus articles about Manmade Global Warming 20 years later.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Gtr Grrl,

            You don’t really understand as much as you think you do.

            This guy is a “Panda Insurances” spammer and troll who doesn’t have anything to do with this blog, Tony Heller’s work or the skeptical position on CAGW.

            God help you if your world view and understanding is shaped by his comments.

            Expand your horizons.

          • Obvius Obzerver says:

            You got played, Gtr Grrl. This guy posts about his insurance everywhere, it’s to entice you to go to his insurance company… But, it’s pretty obvious that you’re not interested in anything other than your opinion. Take your ignorance somewhere like huffpo where you could be considered an intellectual.

          • goldpony says:

            “And if you don’t understand the obvious, what would you know about climate change?”

            Maybe you should ask yourself that question considering the post you responded to was an obvious ad for Insurance Panda, lol.

          • Mark Sircus says:

            Gt Grrl you have ignored the fact that your mind no longer functions and that you are stupid in believing what you read, also you are arrogant beyond belief (meaning of course stupid again) economy booming right….go back to kindergarten and start all over again maybe you will get some things right then

          • summero2 says:

            He said “health insurance” – not “healthcare”. You don’t do comprehension too well. Healthcare and car insurance aren’t remotely comparable. Health insurance and car insurance are perfectly analogous. BTW – Health insurance does not guarantee healthcare, nor is it a prerequisite. A bit of propaganda that your kind is constantly throwing around, but failing to convince anybody. And he is right. My PRIVATE employer provided health insurance premiums and deductibles have gone through the roof since ACA was enacted. Until then, they were fairly flat for 30+ years.

          • Michael Stingone says:

            You are completely correct, about health and auto insurance, I mean. They are not comparable. One, the auto, is a private enterprise that makes a profit, fills a need and is still “affordable” (see that little play on words there?) The other is none of those, by that I mean it is costing the country untold amounts of money, was forced upon us without clear need and without our consent , doesn’t fill really any need,and is without any doubt not “affordable”. It seems to me that johnsmith’s comment is much more accurate than your’s, or perhaps you didn’t read the article to which this comment section is attached. Seems obvious to me.

          • Dan Thomas says:

            The economy is not booming, but it is doing passably well. Let me know if GDP growth reaches 6%.

          • sycomputing says:

            Really? You’re responding to a troll advertising Panda insurance as if it’s real?

          • shockedbystupidity says:

            @Gtr Grrl….MORON….end comment

          • IllogiceBuster says:

            Gtr Grrl, you are an idiot. We have record LOW % of workforce employed in the USA. If one graduates HS or college and cannot find a job the US Gov does NOT consider them unemployed. Just one example to show those who are uneducated why UM figures published by Gov are untrue.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          johnsmith12361,

          Take your Insurance Panda spam and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

      • MPH says:

        Mann refused to supply his data or software to the Canadian courts, something absolutely needed for him to prove he wasn’t a fraud. He’s been found in contempt of court, and his defamation lawsuit dismissed.

        https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/07/04/fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

      • AndyG55 says:

        YIPPPPPPPEEEEEE !! :-) :-)

        Have posted Climate Depot link on NoTricks, BoltA, Tim Blair, Jo Nova, NotaLot…

        Spread this FAR and WIDE !!

        • R. Shearer says:

          Court proceedings have a way of disappointing most everyone. I wouldn’t get too excited until this thing is officially “settled.”

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            True.

          • gator69 says:

            And on top of that, John O’Sullivan has a bad habit of overstating the facts, and may be stretching things a bit once again. I’ll wait for the final verdict before toasting anyone.

          • Al says:

            It’s never going to be “settled” because the liars will never concede even in the face of factual data.
            Has anyone asked scientist Al Gore why the discrepancies with his agenda?

        • richard says:

          it’s amazing how slow it is rolling out. Maybe not count chickens ……….

        • AndyG55 says:

          I’m just imaging that smug super-silly smirk being wiped off Mann’s face. ! :-)

          • gnome says:

            If he can go on smirking through Steyn’s takedown anthology his smirk must be a physiological quirk.

          • TexanForever says:

            Mann has brought extreme discredit to NASA just for not firing him years ago. He’s not fit to flip hamburgers at McDonalds.

            He is either not a competent scientist (a fraud) or knowingly falsified scientific data (a crook).

            I’m beginning to wonder if he even knows the difference between CO1 (poisonous) and CO2 (the breath of life for plants). … All Universities occasionally make mistakes in their PhD awards.

        • Andy DC says:

          Yesterday, a low elevation station near the west coast of Greenland was reporting snow in progress. I know it is Greenland, but even there, low elevation July snow is rare.

          Then even with 24 hours of sunshine, temperatures in Baffin Island were in the upper teens to low 20’s (F).

          The GFS model continues to show cold midsummer outbreaks for the eastern half of the US and Canada at least through 7/20. The FNN (Fake News Networks) will no doubt spin the unusual cold to be a result global warming and a Mann-made appearance of the dreaded polar vortex!

    • Peter says:

      I hope he gives him a new arsehole he wished he never had – the bigger the better!

    • pesadia says:

      Nothing on Tim Ball’s website about it.

    • pompey says:

      Indeed the debate is over. Liberal politics corrupts everything that it touches and science is no exception. For enough grant money science will gladly prostitute itself to any narrative that you desire.

    • Jim Whitehead says:

      Does nobody know how to read anymore? The scientists have massaged the data to remove cyclical hot-cold swings of temperature. The cycles invalidate both “Global Warming” and “Global Cooling.” If the Earth naturally cycles in temperature over years to decades, the whole baloney of chicken-little sky-is-falling climate nonsense needs to hit the trash can of bad ideas,

      Climate theory belongs in the trash can, next to the theory of the flat Earth at the center of the Universe, and the first humans living just ~6,000 years ago in paradise until an absentminded father-figure expelled them forever for the crime of breaking one stupid rule. That’s right, there is just as much hard evidence for man-made climate change as for the mythical Garden of Eden: Zero!

    • Patrick Sims says:

      HOLD ON A MOMENT—In 1978 I use to live in upstate New York. I remember one morning at 6 AM I was on the way to the firehouse and the temperature was -30 F. a few years before that -50F was measured in Malone, New York. How does -33 C constitute the coldest temperature measured in the northern hemisphere???

    • pesadia says:

      Don’t be mislead by John Osullivan, if that was the case, it would be all over WUWT, Jo Nova, No tricks zone and many others.

  2. Graham Cat says:

    You guys really are deplorable. You show one part of the Greenland ice sheet budget and ignore the rest, claiming that you’re the true arbiters of what is science or what isn’t.

    That would be like showing Columbia House’s DVD sales for one day, ignoring all the costs, competitive market analysis, and P&L history, and then claiming that Columbia House is the future of video distribution, and THEN calling yourselves corporate finance experts and that the people who really put together the P&L were the ones who didn’t know what they were talking about.

    Stupid, anti-intellectual, anti-science trash. You.

    • tonyheller says:

      Where do these idiots come from?

      • gator69 says:

        Public schools, that are run by democrats. Note that his brush with science is a video store.

      • Jeremy McManus says:

        Tony Heller — So this response to GrahamCat’s reasonable post is the best you can do, is it? You present your information above as if it’s a startling rebuttal to climate change research in Greenland; and I suppose you earnestly hope that that is how it will be read. Mightn’t it then be worth your making the effort to tell Graham and the rest of us why he is wrong to be critical of it?
        That would be the proper response, of course. But then you would have to justify your having to cherry-pick your information and give it a special significance, all with the express intention of deceiving your gullible readers. And that wouldn’t do at all, would it?

        • tonyheller says:

          Everything he said was total BS.

          • Jeremy McManus says:

            Tony Heller – From what I can tell, your entire blog is devoted to maligning the work of climate researchers and libeling the people themselves in the crudest way. You accuse them of corruption and of falsifying their data for reasons that are perhaps clear to you and your readers, but much less so to fairer, more rational people. It’s clear that you set out to deliberately distort the results of researchers’work and to fabricate your own facts that accord more neatly with your personal prejudices. You seem to work tirelessly to that end so perhaps it’s not to be wondered at that you can manange nothing more taxing here than “It’s total BS”. Feeble though this response is, though, I imagine your acolytes here think it’s terrifically clever. So that’s something.

          • gator69 says:

            Feeble though this response is, though, I imagine your acolytes here think it’s terrifically clever. So that’s something.

            Jeremy, while I greatly appreciate your best effort at speaking on a strictly scientific basis, could you please show us “acolytes” exactly where Tony is wrong? You may have to “dumb it down” for those of us with scientific training and background.

            I’m afraid we are not accustomed to judging facts based upon our emotions and beliefs, so please forgive us and have patience.

          • Jeremy McManus says:

            Gator69 –
            If you seriously expect me to outine all the reasons – or even some of them – why Tony Heller is wrong about his position on climate science in general, or why his article on “Greenland’s record coldest July” is disingenuous to the point of being a deceit, in particular, I should probably have to construct my own blog to do it. If that is to be done, I’m afraid it’s something you will have to wait some time for.
            While you might well appreciate my speaking on a “a strictly scientific basis” you would be wrong to do so. It will be clear to most people, I think, that there was no scientific content in my comments: it was a subjective view only; and in spite of your closing remarks, such a comment is reasonable given the kind of forum this is and the time available to me to make it. When I do submit a paper for consideration it will not be on this blog.
            “Those of us with scientific training and background”. I wouldn’t dream of insulting you by suggesting this is a claim that is not true, that it is said merely in the hope of lending authority to your comments. Some cynical people may interpret your words this way though, so very often it’s best not to take this route.

          • gator69 says:

            It will be clear to most people, I think, that there was no scientific content in my comments

            No kidding.

            Thanks for, well… really… nothing.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I should probably have to construct my own blog to do it.”

            Well.. off you trot… don’t bother posting a link when you are done.

            Yet another alarmist blog full of propaganda BS and anti-science….. without a doubt !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            ” “Greenland’s record coldest July” is disingenuous”

            So, you have information to the contrary?

            Yes.. or no..?

            Seems to only DECEITFUL person here is YOU.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “It will be clear to most people, I think, that there was no scientific content in my comments:”

            ZERO content, except mindless yapping.

            But do keep going .. its hilarious. !!! :-)

          • sunsettommy says:

            Jerry McManus, comes along with a statement that is a howler since Tony’s post was very small.

            “Gator69 –
            If you seriously expect me to outine all the reasons – or even some of them – why Tony Heller is wrong about his position on climate science in general, or why his article on “Greenland’s record coldest July” is disingenuous to the point of being a deceit, in particular, I should probably have to construct my own blog to do it. If that is to be done, I’m afraid it’s something you will have to wait some time for.”

            Sure Jerry, sure.

            Neither you or Graham Cat,has yet to come up with a SINGLE detailed counterpoint to Tony’s very small blog post,which indicate to me that you two are full of crap,you are here to create fog,nothing more.

            Either you two warmist clowns pony up a credible case or SHUT UP!

          • sunsettommy says:

            Jeremy,comes up with another ZERO counterpoint comment,because he is here to whine about Tony’s style:

            “Tony Heller – From what I can tell, your entire blog is devoted to maligning the work of climate researchers and libeling the people themselves in the crudest way. You accuse them of corruption and of falsifying their data for reasons that are perhaps clear to you and your readers, but much less so to fairer, more rational people. It’s clear that you set out to deliberately distort the results of researchers’work and to fabricate your own facts that accord more neatly with your personal prejudices….”

            Meanwhile Jeremy is more like a Troll than honest debater since he has yet to contribute to a counterpoint to Tony’s post.

            It appears Jeremy has nothing useful for us to chew on,because he can’t since what Tony posted comes straight out of the DMI link and he KNOWS IT!

            Admit it Jeremy, you are here to sow fog and confusion,because YOU ARE that way.

          • Jeremy McManus says:

            Gator 69 – You do like to cherry-pick, don’t you? Old habits die hard, I suppose.

          • gator69 says:

            You do like to cherry-pick, don’t you? Old habits die hard, I suppose.

            Project much Jeremy? Please show me where I have cherry picked anything.

            Unlike genocidal alarmists, I look at the whole picture, and when I do I find nothing unusual about our current climate or how we got here.

            How about some science Jeremy?

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Jeremy McManus says:

            AndyG55 – You seem to have been brought to the point of apoplexy by my comment that the oft-repeated claim that Greenland’s record cold point in July suggests a significantly important counter to global warming, is disingenuous. ‘RealClimateScience’ has run this story because Tony Heller posted a tweet (a tweet, for goodness’ sake!) to it, and here it sits attracting excitable comments like yours, and its significance continues to gather momentum for the deniers – again, like you.

            The temperature we’re discussing here happened on one day only and it was an extreme departure from the norm; this was not, after all, a particularly significant event, apparently – not, at least, in the way that you and your fellow deniers would like it to be.
            SummitScience, the website that Heller cites finds nothing in this event worthy of mention.

            Heller accompanies a graph and a chart with the comment, “Almost all of Greenland’s surface is gaining ice. In fact, Greenland has gained a record amount of ice this year, and the ice is melting slowly.” This might well be true; but without adding context, it’s meaningless. What, for example, are the relative gains and losses of the ice? Luckily, we have the DMI to refer to, the very website Heller has sourced but oddly has not read.
            It is entitled, Current Surface Mass Budget Of The Greenland Ice Sheet, and its summary is clear and unambiguous: “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/year.

            “Yes or no”, Andy? Well, clearly, that’ll be a yes, then.

          • Jeremy McManus says:

            AndyG55 –

            Genocidal alarmists! That’s a new one on me.
            Anyway, unlike them, you look at the whole picture, you say. If you do, it’s a pretty myopic view you have, I suspect. Perhaps it’s why you see nothing unusual about our current climate – and why you have difficulty seeing how you got here.

            You ask me to supply you with a detailed list of climate forcings and, rather surprisingly, only one peer-reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as a cause of … global climate change. Phew! What a task-master you are!

            To take the second item first, I’m pretty sure no paper exists that argues that natural forcings are not a contributory cause of global warming. Indeed, everything I’ve ever read on this subject emphphatically states the opposite: that they do and must. Well that was easy enough.

            So far as the first part of the homework is concerned, such a comprehensive and detailed list is readily available using online recources and if you are able to rouse yourself sufficiently to use them you will have more accurate answers than perhaps I will give you.

            But of course your purpose in asking for this information is really only so that deficiencies in my understanding, if there are any, can be shown up and used to your advantage. All right, that is fair enough, many here will say. But my ignorance does not strengthen your case. To do that you must produce qualitative counter evidence for your position, and that is something that neither the entire weird world of AGW deniers nor you as one miniscule cog in its machinery is willing or able to do.

            By the way, the remarks I made about your evident liking for cherry-picking was a reference to your selective reading of points in my earlier post. Perhaps it’s your myopia interfering again.

          • Gator69 says:

            Jeremy, you are a hot mess. First you thought Graham’s comment was “reasonable”, then you attribute my comment to Andy, and now admit you are ignorant of the science.

            You ask me to supply you with a detailed list of climate forcings and, rather surprisingly, only one peer-reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as a cause of … global climate change. Phew! What a task-master you are!

            To take the second item first, I’m pretty sure no paper exists that argues that natural forcings are not a contributory cause of global warming. Indeed, everything I’ve ever read on this subject emphphatically states the opposite: that they do and must. Well that was easy enough.

            If this info is “readily available”, then why can you not supply it.

            Papers please!

            Later we can discuss the genocide.

          • RAH says:

            No answers, just BS from Jeremy.
            Dog ate his homework.
            The questions were:
            “1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.”
            He answered neither.

            You can’t answer them Jeremy because the answers don’t exist.

            The science has not advanced to the point where all the climate forcings are known nor do we fully understand the relationships and interdependencies of those that we do know about. New papers are published all the time on this subject. Hell, we’re still trying to figure out if cosmic rays actually have a part in cloud formation.

            You can’t answer the 2nd question because such a paper does not exist. How could it when we still even haven’t figured out all the branches of the carbon cycle? We don’t even know where all the carbon is sequestered yet. And how could there be such a paper when all the answers to question number 1 are not known?

          • Jeremy McManus says:

            This is a correction that I should have posted long ago as a matter of courtesy to Tony Heller. That it has taken this long to do it is shameful, I know. I put it down to needing to sleep (I’m in England, after all) but getting too involved in the chit-chat on this thread.

            My original post was addressed to Tony because his is the name that appears at the top of the page. To Tony himself and to others who read it, its disproportionate content must have been startling.

            Of course, he merely posted an item of interest to the site; he may well be sympathetic to its views but he is not responsible for the site itself, as I’d supposed.

            So my apologies to you Tony, and I hope
            you are able to find time to read this.

          • Jeremy McManus says:

            RAH. –

            Dare I suggest that even others here who strongly deny the proposition that AGW is a reality will struggle to supress their mirth when they read your contribution. All right, perhaps I’m alone with that.
            But I’m afraid your comments amount to no more than a confession that you don’t know very much about what’s going on in climate research – or indeed about any aspect of the climate, come to that (“we don’t even know where all the carbon is sequestered”!).

            You make the point – and it’s a rather obvious point – that there is much we don’t know about climate forcings. That’s perhaps broadly true of most contributing factors involved in the climate, I guess. But what of that? The point is that incomplete though the evidence might be for AGW – and we’re talking about evidence from an astonishingly wide range of independent disciplines, all them in broad agreement, remember – is sufficient by any reasonable person’s measure, to take the subject seriously and give it the benefit of any doubt.
            It’s sufficient, put another way, not to be blithly dismissed as a liberal conspiracy – that great, comical, American delusion.

          • Jeremy McManus says:

            Gator69

            Yes, you’re quite right: I addressed the comment to the wrong person. It doesn’t surprise me though: one denier’s views. very soon meld into another’s. They become indistinguishable. It won’be long before you’re all addressed as Andy -or even RAH! Which will save time of course.

            That aside I think you have misunderstood my post. So far as I am aware, NO papers suggest that natural variabilty hasn’t a role in climate change. Or put another way, NO paper denies or refutes natural variation having a contributory role. Or put another way … No, maybe that’s enough.

            Would you still like to see this paper that cannot be produced?

          • Gator69 says:

            But I’m afraid your comments amount to no more than a confession that you don’t know very much about what’s going on in climate research – or indeed about any aspect of the climate…

            Jeremy, why do you insist on projecting your own ignorance onto everyone else? Most of the regulars here have formal scientific training, and have spent decades studying climate. I myself was a climatology student at a major university shortly after the ice age scare ended, and right before the great global warming swindle began. I have followed the science closely ever since, reading each study for myself as they are published. This is why I am a skeptic, because I understand the subject very well, unlike you.

            You show just how shallow a thinker you are by coming here and posting comments when you know full well you have no clue what you are yammering about.

            An intelligent person would never dream of commenting on subjects about which they know nothing. And then there is Jeremy.

          • Gator69 says:

            Would you still like to see this paper that cannot be produced?

            Yes, please do continue to show your ignorance! As I have pointed out, you are the denier of science Jeremy. The science says we cannot blame man.

        • gator69 says:

          GrahamCat’s reasonable post?

          You guys really are deplorable. You show one part of the Greenland ice sheet budget and ignore the rest, claiming that you’re the true arbiters of what is science or what isn’t.

          That would be like showing Columbia House’s DVD sales for one day, ignoring all the costs, competitive market analysis, and P&L history, and then claiming that Columbia House is the future of video distribution, and THEN calling yourselves corporate finance experts and that the people who really put together the P&L were the ones who didn’t know what they were talking about.

          Stupid, anti-intellectual, anti-science trash. You.

          Really? On exactly what planet is that a reasonable post?

          You are a real tool Jeremy. LOL

          • sunsettommy says:

            He is too busy making personal attacks,to address his well supported blog post. Which means he is here for something other than an honest debate.

            It is clear he doesn’t have anything to counter Tony with here.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Jeremy McManus,

          I do not know Graham Cat’s state of mind when she wrote her post but it reads like the hysterical woman who once screamed at me that Republicans want to kill all prairie dogs.

          I’m tolerant of all points of view but I did not think her emotional outburst was very reasonable. I also did not know what would have been the proper response so I did not say anything.

          Since you clearly do not belong to gullible, deplorable, stupid, anti-intellectual, anti-science trash, what do you think of the assorted evidence collected at this blog?

          I assume that as an intelligent and educated person you formed a fact-based opinion before you posted your comment.

          • Jeremy McManus says:

            Colorado Wellington –
            Thank you for your post.
            I took Graham’s post to be from a man – it’s more usually a man’s name in England, but perhaps that’s not the case in the USA. Either way, when I read it I focussed on what to me was a good point: “You show one part of the Greenland … were talking about”. This was a reasonable point to make and should, in my view, have brought a reasonable answer from someone who, we are to believe, is sufficiently on the ball that he feels qualfied to dismantle the research results of modern climate science.
            As for your question to me perhaps I should refer you to my second post to Tony Heller for the answer. I can expand it a little by adding that blogs like this one do a great disservice to both climate research and to rational, reasoned scepticism – something which, although it will no doubt be disputed here, exists comfortably in the field and is welcomed by researchers. Here, in this blog the default setting for both the site’s publishers – if that’s the word – and the majority of its readers is to reject climate research as a sort of reflex. It’s a given to them that the entire community of climate scientists are either corrupt or incompetent. That is not a rational position to take but it clearly is the favoured one.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Jeremy,

            I may have erred in thinking that the above poster self-identified as Graham Cat’s was a lady. I simply didn’t want to appear sexist by assuming that his/her scientific comment had to come from a man. It is also true that living in very progressive Boulder I know just as many hysterical men as I know women, and even a few who don’t identify as either.

            On the other hand, I do know several highly intelligent, educated and scientifically accomplished ladies who are readers of this blog. What criteria did you use to say that you and other critics of Tony Heller’s work are ”fairer, more rational people”? And how did you come to the conclusion that Tony Heller and the majority of the readers of this blog ”reject climate research as a sort of reflex”? Did you actually read any of the posts?

            Since you didn’t address it, let me ask again:

            What do you think of the assorted evidence collected at this blog?

            ———-
            You are, of course, entitled to whatever opinion you have but some facts would be nice.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Come on Jeremy, show us REAL data on the part you say is missing..

          and NOT the piomess model.

          Actual data showing how much comes off the “rivers of ice”

          You don know that is what they are, don’t you.. and that they “flow”??? .. Just take a while is all.

          Let’s see if you can present a single bit of actual science , shall we. ;-)

          • David A says:

            Jermy, invited to a real conversation, is aparently a defenseless little child, ill equiped to any rational discussion.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Great to see the manic AGW cultists continuing to display their ABJECT IGNORANCE and lack of any sort of basic education or scientific knowledge. :-)

    • richard says:

      Strange that , the only warming shown on the DMI site is a little bit on the west coast.

    • tty says:

      At the moment the Greenland ice has the highest snow accumulation in modern times:

      https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

      And the slowest melting ever recorded at this date:

      http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png

      While Arctic temperatures have been below normal since April:

      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png

      Of course all these data are from the Danish Meteorological Institute, well known as being stupid, anti-intellectual, anti-science trash.

      And the Norwegian Meteorological Institue is just as trashy, showing sea-ice in the Svalbard sector as being over average:

      http://polarview.met.no/Statistics/graphs/icechart_season_plot_latest.png

      • Griff says:

        Highest SNOW accumulation, yes…

        Because last winter had an unusually large number of storms in the arctic producing precipitation… snow, in other words…

        The changing arctic climate dumped a lot more snow

        and yet Greenland is melting – I notice you don’t show the graphs covering the high melt levels in N and W Greenland this year – and shedding mass, as warming causes glaciers to dump ice at a faster rate.

        and yes there is a lot more ice around Svalbard – because those same storms pushed it out toward the Atlantic where it will now melt.

        Leaving, very probably, a record low extent come September.

        Really, you have to ask what is behind all this – and look at an abnormally warm, relatively speaking, arctic winter with increased storms.

        Caused by climate change.

        • AndyG55 says:

          WRONG again , little griff.

          See all that red in the 1981-2010 average.. MELT

          See all that blue in the 2017 chart.. GAIN.

          Why do you ALWAYS deny the data that is right in front of your eyes,

          Are you just a brain-dead moron.. or is you manic ignorance intentional??

          • James says:

            Isn’t there a lot of geothermal activity in greenland/iceland? So, regardless of how much ice there is, there will always be melt with volcanic vents and such? Did these “scientists” forget about this? Also ignore their documented papers on the next ice age they were predicting in the 70’s and 80’s. But despite all this we are the science deniers.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Leaving, very probably, a record low extent come September.”

          BULLSHIT , yet again

          The record lows are from before the LIA, and during the 1940-1960 period.

          Yes there is a small amount less than the EXTREMES of the late 1970s, but Arctic sea ice extent is still higher than it has been for 90-95% of the last 10,000 years.

          Your continued IGNORANCE on this topic is duly noted by everyone reading your moronic posts.

          Your mindless, zero-knowledge posts do a LOT of damage to the AGW cult religion.

          Your handlers should realise this and increase your ADHD medication.

        • Andy DC says:

          With -33 record cold on top of the ice sheet, combined with the effects of Griff’s 2 inch blowtorch, we should anticipate a VERY huge melt between now and September!

        • gator69 says:

          Caused by climate change.

          Yes Ms Griff, climate change, a natural occurrence. Ice grows during a glaciation, and recedes during an interglacial. As natural as a sunrise or a sunset.

          So why do you hate poor brown people?

    • JC in KC says:

      Did you bother reading the article or looking at the chart at the end showing that 2016 / 2017 show significantly higher ice cover for the country

    • Jim Murphy says:

      From the same web site where they cherry picked some stuff that confirms what they wish to believe, the carefully avoid this:
      “Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

    • Budman says:

      Are you saying they really didn’t just want to send me 12 cds for a penny (plus shipping and handling) and instead they were hoping I’d continue to take their cd of the month? Because they scammed me with casettes, 8 tracks and lps, so I can’t imagine that they would do the same thing to me 4 times. Columbia House is clearly the worst house in Hogwarts.

  3. FlatEarther says:

    I’m sorry, but the Earth is not a ‘sphere’, thus the word ‘hemisphere’ should read ‘hemisplane’.

  4. Red says:

    Global warming is really a bitch!

  5. David Metzig says:

    Well, fear not boys and girls, once NASA and NOAA get their hands on the data, it will be the warmest July in 50,000 years.

  6. Trey Cooper says:

    Oh my, climate discombobulation!

  7. Bernal says:

    Jeez, so sorry to be on thread. Respect the Tone’s concern for Greenland’s golf economy. Very sad.

  8. Sardondi says:

    But…….but…….no more snow! And……and……..polar bear cubs on ice floes!

  9. Huskie_Jon says:

    Think of how much colder the temperature would be if it were not for global warming.

  10. Fred Mertz says:

    I am finding this whole global warming thing very difficult to understand. Let’s see if I have it right…
    The warmer the globe gets, the colder it gets??!!!
    It’s all so confusing. I guess we need lefty geniuses to explain it to us. Al?!!

    • Sam Dennis says:

      Lucy knows …. the more the climate changes the more the temperature’s change.

      More daylight in the summer months …. cold weather in winter time …. April Showers now in May or June. Life is good, but complicated. Do I need an umbrella today?

    • TheRon says:

      Not confusing at all. “Global warming” has become “climate change” because it’s all about turning your money and control of your life to the global ruling elites.

  11. First, you show the mass budget image showing mass diffs from September 1st of last year until now. This encompasses the entire Arctic winter and the cool early Summer months. Cherrypick much?

    Then you use this image to claim “Almost all of Greenland’s surface is gaining ice.” Let’s forget for a moment that you chose an image which ignores the biggest melt months of the year. Had you chosen a correct image, you could still have shown that more of the surface of the ice sheet HAS gained mass since 1980. However, those gains are small in magnitude, whereas the areas losing mass have done so rapidly. The second effect by far overwhelms the first. We’re talking about net mass loss of well over 1,000 cubic miles just since 2002. This is highly intuitive: ice melts from the edges first.

    At present you are a third-rate fraud. If you could just suppress your instincts the defraud and mislead for a few seconds, and present your arguments in a logically self-consistent manner, you could perhaps become a second-rate fraud.

    • tonyheller says:

      Moron alert

    • AndyG55 says:

      Greenland’s Total Ice mass since 1900.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Currently, Greenland Ice are is very close to the maximum it has been in 8000 years.

      Are you REALLY THAT IGNORANT that you don’t know these basic FACTS?

      • pkn says:

        As a stock market guy, the above chart represents a “saucer bottom” with a now established uptrend in place. The scary part, if this were a stock, is that it projects a return to where it was 9-10,000 years ago. Perhaps those peeps back in the mid 70’s predicting a new ice age were right after all!

    • AndyG55 says:

      The fact that your name links to one of the ultimate FRAUD sites, huff-post, say it all about your base level ANTI-SCIENCE IGNORANCE and your brain-washed GULLIBILITY.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Every now and then the progressives dispatch a troll claiming even more stupidity than Ms Griff.

      • AndyG55 says:

        I’m amazed they keep finding people dumber than griff.

        I must have lead a sheltered life to have avoided most of these, except when occasionally teaching low IQ 14-15 year olds in remedial maths classes at high school.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Heh. Ms Griff makes it clear she will not be relegated to a runner-up position by a bloody newbie.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Fraud boy, it is clear you didn’t read the link carefully since NONE of it supports your assertions at all. Not only that it is dated June 30,2017 thus almost current time,here is what the state of the ice pack was based on the 1981-2010 mean which is right there on the chart:

      http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png

      Tony didn’t make those charts, DMI did. Yet you attack Tony for them,that is stupid.

    • Andy DC says:

      Would you be so kind to explain how Greenland is losing all of this ice mass when the temperatures on the top of the ice mass very seldom get above freezing and when they do, just barely get above freezing for a couple of hours? I seriously doubt that geothermal heat is a source of significant melt and even if it were, it would have nothing to do with AGW.

      If ice sheet is calving, why would calving be more now than during any other time in history? More calving is a result of more snowfall, not less.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Our Fourth Rate polar explorer didn’t learn about the freezing point of water from some school books.

        He knows his Arctic water and it’s not like some wussy metrosexual New York City tap water that wimps out and freezes at 0°C. No Sir, this is tough Russian water that defied cold temperatures since Joseph Stalin ordered the conquest of the White North. It stays liquid to at least -48°C and more if under Party instructions. Such class-aware, battle-hardened water is not going to sit idly and frozen on top of Greenland ice sheet just because it’s still a couple of degrees below zero Celsius. It will get up and do its job long before the temperature rises to that point.

        Fourth Rate knows his Progressive physics.

  12. Rah says:

    Greenland mass balance is going to take another spine up. Huge amount of snow forecast for south and central Greenland this week.
    Where ever “global warming’ is, it’s not in Greenland or Antarctica right now! Both extremely cold right now.

    • Rejuvenated says:

      RAH,
      Sorry for jumping in like this and off topic, but I was referred to you from another site when I started asking if anyone had heard anything about the latest ELD regulations and their impact on the trucking industry (just found a story on it myself despite the Final Rule passing 2 years ago). I was concerned because of the sentiment many (over 40%) drivers/owners have of leaving the industry because of these regulations and the impact it could have on our nation. Any insight would be appreciated- thank you!

      https://cqrcengage.com/ooida/file/DquBP25bEJ6/ELD%20One%20Pager%20for%20OOIDA%20Members.pdf

      https://cdllife.com/2012/trucker-life/infographic-if-trucks-stopped/

      • Rah says:

        I was one of the last in my company to go on e-logs and only did so when they forced me and the rest of us holdouts to. I have been on e-logs now for over two years and it isn’t as bad as I thought it would be.

        I do FTL, and LTL trucking. I go where they need me to go whenever they need me to go within the hours of service requirements.

        The last run I did before starting my vacation was one I had never done before. It had five stops in IL and IN and started and returned to Hebron, KY (SW of Cincinnati by the airport). I got it all done within the legal time limit though I had only 1.25 hrs remaining on my 14 hr duty day when I finished. However, since I was bobtailing home to Anderson, IN I could log the trip home as “Off duty driving”.

        There is a lot more to being a successful driver than skill behind the wheel. One must think ahead and manage their time/logs as efficiently as possible. Guys that can’t do that need to work in hourly jobs or doing a dedicated route where they drive the same route day after day.

    • Art Bralick says:

      With all that growth in the ice sheet, shouldn’t we be concerned that Greenland might flipover and kill the thousands living there?…sarcasm and absurdity to illustrate the great thinkers on the Left.

      • Kris Johanson says:

        Art, I assume you’re making an oblique reference to a certain Congressman from Georgia?

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        We must seriously consider the possibility of Greenland capsizing because of anthropogenic global warming-caused ice melt or ice growth.

        The question is whether it will tip over to the west and splash on Canada or to the east and spill water over Iceland onto Europe.

        The U.S. Congress should conduct hearings and invite climate guru James Hansen again.

  13. eileen says:

    Interesting blog.

  14. Truth Detector says:

    What’s wrong with the weather?

    Doesn’t it know how hot it’s supposed to be?

  15. Bob Hoye says:

    Hi Tony
    I hope you read this one.
    The old Vancouver Stock Exchange was known for promotions.
    There is a definition of a promotion:
    “In the beginning, the promoter has the vision and the public has the money.
    At the end of the promotion, the promoter has the money and the public has the vision.”

    Bob Hoye

  16. Sammy says:

    Unless people realize that the SUN is creating all of the cold and hot snaps since the earth existed, the people will never comprehend the importance of it and will continue to believe the lying man.
    We rotate around a variable intensity star that changes its energy flux on daily bases. Now, measure the IR and UV rays every day that reach the surface of earth and you will become your own climate scientist and can predict the cold and worm snaps in near future.
    The climate and weather patters change all of the time, irrespectable of the human activity, I hope some of you will think twice before blindly believe the fabricated temps and data collections manipulations.

    • James says:

      Great comment. I was wondering the other day if our orbit around the sun is always the same exact path year after year with no variations. Because if for one year or for several years we drifted slightly closer to the sun wouldn’t that raise temperatures and vice versa? Yet humans are at fault and not a very complex Earth, atmosphere and universe.

      • Rejuvenated says:

        This isn’t the original post I remembered from several years ago, but it gives a good explanation on changes in speed and rotation. The post I was trying to find was a scientist explaining that Earth’s shape has changed over the millennia- the planet used to be more ellipse-like and spun more quickly but slowly became more spherical as mass settled around the equator and the spin rate has slowed.

        https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1031

      • cdquarles says:

        It isn’t. The eccentricity changes, the obliquity changes, the nutation changes and, since the galaxy rotates, the solar system’s galactic position changes. The actual orbit is a toroid.

      • cdquarles says:

        The planar project of the orbit is elliptical. For a bit less than half of the year, the Earth is closer to the sun than its mean distance (note, that is a statistical summary of the actual time stepped positions) and for a bit more than half of the year the Earth is further away from the sun than its mean distance. TOA insolation varies by about 7% each year, due to the 0.17 mean eccentricity of the orbit, and that eccentricity is variable. It gets closer to zero (more circular) at times and further from zero at times (more elliptical). The net effect depends on land distribution, obliquity (axial tilt, which varies from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees), solar activity (the sun is a variable star, even though the total TSI doesn’t vary much, the proportion of UV output does vary significantly), galactic position (more dusty parts versus less dusty parts, and interstellar interaction (think what a faint dwarf star could do to the solar system if it passed close enough to it).

  17. Steve Case says:

    First Chuckle of the day:

    As Steve Goddard notes, climate is impossible to forecast, but climate fraud is extremely predictable.

    http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-adjustments-to-temperature-record.html

    • Griff says:

      Oh! did those guys cover the RSS satellite adjustments?

      The RSS satellite figures Tony has so, so often quoted on this site?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Yep, MASSIVE , unaccounted for, adjustments.

        Paid for pal-reviewed AGW nonsense. ..

        Mears finally caves to peer-pressure, losing his scientific integrity.

      • AndyG55 says:

        And yes, it was predicted to happen sooner or later.

        UAH is now the only trustworthy temperature record.

        And it matches NOAA’s own satellites almost exactly.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Did you know that RSS V4 STILL has a zero trend from late 2001 -2015 even after the manic adjustments.?

      • AndyG55 says:

        You are truly one of the MOST STUPID AGW trolls on the net,

        …. and that is really saying something. !

        About 10 stage further than DUMBEST. !!

      • AndyG55 says:

        Its almost as if you are paid to post nonsense so that your childish posts can be countered with the facts.

        So funny , and so DUMB of you, griff.

        • griff says:

          Not so dumb as spending 10 years saying there was a pause and its not warming based on RSS data, then suddenly it all gets adjusted and you find your evidence just vanished.

          By the way, isn’t UAH a little bit adjusted too?

          • sunsettommy says:

            Griff, don’t ever think?

            RSS was fine with their data for 38 years,then suddenly it is too cold,so they adjust it UPWARDS,which is ALWAYS the case for warmists playing with data.

            You have any skeptical ability to see what is really going on around you?

          • sunsettommy says:

            UAH was adjusted upward,when it was discovered that the satellite was drifting slowly out of orbit.

            DR. Spencer explained this at the time,it was an honest adjustment, Skeptics understood after a while when they caught up on it.

            RSS has no such excuse that passes the scientific test. It was done for political/propaganda reasons.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You idiot, griff.

            The pause from 2001-2015 still exists in the “temperature enhanced” RSS series.

          • AndyG55 says:

            OOPS.

            Griff get egg on its face YET AGAIN

            You must almost be able to live on a diet of scrambled eggs just from the face scrapings, hey child-mind.

            https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

      • gator69 says:

        He said his old data had errors in it and he has now corrected the errors, to show some warming — a warming of 18 hundredths of one degree over nearly 20 years, no less! One hundredth of a degree per annum!

        Carl’s adjustments were so bad in fact that the paper in which he described them was rejected as unpublishable by a major climate journal, eventually being accepted by a meteorological one.

        Is this why you hate poor brown people Ms Griff?

      • Rah says:

        I remember when Drs Christy and Spencer were working on their latest version of the UAH. They announced they were working on a new version and explained why many months before it was implemented.

        Contrast that to how this RSS “adjustment” was implemented.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Maybe the RSS researchers discovered only recently that they’d been working on their latest upward fix for a long time. 😎

  18. Xu Zu says:

    I live in Germany and it’s been downright cold. Sure it’s just one part of the world but for three years, it’s been cold and this summer is freezing. We’re wearing jackets in July and using heat because it’s so cold. We’ve had days recently with HIGHS in the fifties. We’ve yet to have a warm day this year.

    If you look at a much broader picture, what’s actually happening is that we’ve been coming out of the mini ice age which lasted until about 1880…exactly when global warmists start their data because otherwise it falls apart.

    In the Middle Ages, they grew wheat in Greenland!

  19. RJG says:

    Great information. Thanks for your work to save humanity from the AGW fraud and hysteria.

  20. CheshireRed says:

    Imagine if Greenland had set a hottest-ever June record. That would’ve been screamed from the rooftops at the BBC / Guardian / NYT / WaPo etc.

  21. AndyG55 says:

    There has been no significant warming in the Arctic in 80 years.

    Temperatures in the 1940s were actually as high or higher than now.

    The satellite record that the AGW scammers use starts in the COLDEST year in the last 100 or so years

    • Andy DC says:

      1979 is the gift that keeps on giving for alarmists. By far the coldest year of the modern era. The greatest cherry pick for the greatest science scam of all time.

  22. Lynn says:

    Wow I love this site especially Andy thanks

  23. Douglas Hoyt says:

    Here in West Virginia, blueberries peaked about 10 days later than usual. Corn also seems to be about a foot shorter than most years. So no sign of global warming around here.

  24. Steven Fraser says:

    I sent a note asking DMI when the SMB would get unstuck from 6/30. Imwill let youmall know their reply.

  25. a p garcia says:

    The reason it is melting is simple, it the new ice that was discovered. This ice melts at -33.

  26. FredFitz says:

    During the 1940s and 1950s February temperatures in Saranac Lake New York regularly hit -40 degrees ( at -40 F = C ).

  27. Gary's opinion says:

    Impossible, Al Gore told us that he saw fish swimming in the streets of Miami a couple of weeks ago.

    • Buckeyeman says:

      And the slack-jawed Mike Wallace sat there like a dead fish himself. He never once appeared to wonder let alone question Algore about where Miami Beach went if Miami’s streets are underwater. Insane is the word that comes to mind. Well, corrupt also.

  28. Bobbo Bobbino says:

    If you’re driving down the side of a mountain, and the road has a small rise in elevation but the overall trajectory is going down hill, you’re the type when we reach the slight rise to scream, “See, descending is a liberal lie, we’re going up hill. See, it’s all lies. Science is a lie, people who listen to science are liars, news is fake, up is down, coal is clean, we’re going up hill!!!!”

    • tonyheller says:

      Where do these left wing morons come from?

      • gator69 says:

        Our public schools, where they are taught what to think rather than how to think.

      • TimA says:

        And he’s the kind of guy who sees an article about the coldest July temperature ever recorded and tell us in a “scientific” manner that this is caused by global warming….

      • arn says:

        Just read “The deliberate dumbing down of America”
        charlotte iserbyt wrote in the beginning of the 80ies.

        Combine this with the hippies((students on drugs sitting in shit and mud ))

        +doctors giving hard drugs to little children
        thanks to charlatan Leon Eisenberg(prozac)

        +sexualisation from very young age
        and promotion of homosexuality

        +polymorphic perversion by Sigmund Freud & Frankfurt School

        +the attack on all cultural values that keep a community together((family,marriage))

        and you get Karl Marx perfect poster child.

        As communism has nothing to offer,while it tries to possess and controle everything dumbness,perversion,lies,no integrity,dysfuntional people
        are the only place this shitty ideologie can survive.
        So shitty that even all other shitty ideologies combined
        have not succeeded to produce so many primitive,culturless idiots than the neobolshewiks=progressives nowadays.

        The trick is simple:
        perversion+turning people to traitors acting against their all people:
        Happened in communist russia/china/yugoslavia etc etc,
        and all endet in mass
        killings of the own people.

        And if you take a look at those lefties these days:
        they are against their own people ,calling them nazis for
        the slightest sense of pride and patriotism etc,
        while at the same time fully supporting and protecting ideologies like islam(which is much closer to nazis than anything which are 100% against all values of leftist.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Bobbo Bobbino,

      I enjoy rigorous debate and thorough investigation of facts us but I also know there are complete idiots out there who can’t think or contribute anything of value.

      I can see you stretched your reasoning ability beyond its limits and I am relieved that you represent the opposing argument.

    • Rah says:

      Perhaps Bobbo could explain to us where the water from went? If the Greenland Ice sheet has been losing ice there would be a measurable increase in the rate of SLR unless there was a balancing increase in SMB elsewhere, such as Antarctica. There is no increase in the rate of SLR. Where did all that water go Bobbo?

      • gator69 says:

        Rah, every climate expert knows that the water went to the bottom of the ocean, and not the top. It’s called the “Trenberth Effect”.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Come on, RAH, stop piling on. Don’t you see that Bobbo can’t follow even the most basic argument?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Little bobbo,

      here is a graph of the Greenland total ice mass since 1900.

      If you feel it is incorrect, present your own.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Andy, you must be admonished as well. What would poor Bobbo know about scale?

        Stop picking on him.

  29. Dudefromdixie says:

    Well I’m much more worried about North Korea nuking Tokyo, Seoul, or Anchorage than I am about a little ice melt. If civilization is wiped out in this century it will be either from an asteroid strike or nuclear annihilation.

  30. Teddy Novak says:

    Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.
    Sheep, lemmings, and Leftists are easily manipulated.
    http://www.zazzle.com/firstprinciples?rf=238518351914519699

  31. Steven Fraser says:

    Here is what DMI said about the stuck SMB:

    Dear Steven,

    Due to ongoing problems with observations we unfortunately have temporarily suspended daily surface mass balance.

    We expect it to be up to date soon.

    Best regards
    Rasmus
    Customer Service
    DMI

  32. Craig says:

    Wow! How did I ever not find this blog. Really appreciate all the information and analysis. Now I have someplace to send the alarmists to in order to educate them. Can someone please direct Bill Nye here so he fades away?

  33. Jim Mann says:

    THE FACTS ARE AS BEFORE THE LIBERAL BARRAGE OF HATE AND DISINFOMATION…THE WORLD MAYBE WARMING IN PLACES BUT NOT BY MAN….MAYBE ALL THE LIES AND BULLSHIT THE LIBS HAVE BEEN SCREAMING HAS CAUSED THE HEATING OF THE AIR BUT I DOUBT IS HAS ANY LASTING EFFECT OF THE EARTH…….MOTHER EARTH KNOWS BULLSHIT WHEN SHE SEES IT..

  34. joel says:

    Has anybody here arguing about Greenland ever been to Greenland?

    I do know that were I live, Maryland, there is no “global” warming discernible. One of my observations is that “global” warming always occurs someplace else.

    • gregole says:

      This whole Greenland discussion I’ve been following for some time, really has me intrigued to go there some day…

      The place looks completely awesome.

      This would probably be a bad year though. It’s way cold this summer.

  35. Jasonn says:

    How awkward for ManBearPig and all the other global warming weenies.

  36. Jeffrey Gee says:

    Man/Bear/Pig (Al Gore) may need to make another “Inconvenient Truth” movie that no one will watch explaining how full of crap he is and should be imprisoned for fraud and crimes against nature and humanity. He should be stripped of all his homes and private jets and imprisoned indefinitely. He’s nothing, but another government scam artist! I’d like to twist his ugly little head off his neck!

  37. Crazy Navy Jake says:

    Really people believe that man kind has caused the climate to change…I mean it takes God millennia to do it…we must be pretty powerful…first we made it too hot, then with a little action, an the blessed St Al Gore de Tera help we caused a pause…

    Wake up people it was a way to force another tax on you by taxing “carbon” the climate changes all the time…thats why every year is different.

    Stopping production of goods in the United States and allowing other countries to go unmonitored, just moves production around, share the wealth, but it’s nothing more then allowing people to pee in the shallow end of the pool, because you swim in the deep end. It’s all gonna mix up!

    Wake up climate change conspiracy theorists

  38. erp says:

    Bring back spray deoderants.

  39. Jim says:

    The only man caused global warming is by Michael Mann.

  40. lu mahalo says:

    Hey liberals, how ’bout this NEWS FLASH:

    The World Health (WHO) lists the USA near the top in the world for having the best air quality…among ALL the world’s whiners who complain about us…some 200+ countries.

    In fact, when you take into account that the USA is the world’s largest economy, produces more than any other country, has more cars and infrastructure, has the 3rd largest population and has the 3rd largest land area…the USA is the top country by any standards.

    We are significantly cleaner than the air in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the UK, Japan, Austria and France.

    http://list25.com/25-cleanest-cities-in-the-world/
    3 of the ’25 Cleanest Cities In The World in the world’ are in the United States!

    • #2 Chicago
    • #4 Honolulu
    • #16 Portland, OR.

    Did you say, “Chicago?” haha, yup.

    http://www.scgh.com/featured/green-news/the-cleanest-and-the-most-polluted-cities/
    The top 10 cleanest cities in the world:

    • #2 Honolulu
    • #5 Minneapolis.

    https://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/the-20-most-polluted-cities-in-the-world/19379
    The 15 most polluted cities in the world:

    • Zabol, IRAN tops the list as the most polluted
    • INDIA with 7 cities
    • CHINA, with 3 cities
    • SAUDI ARABIA, with 3 cities
    • CAMEROON, with 1 city

    NO US city made any ‘Most Polluted’ list. But, China, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia seem to be on many.

    AND, THE LIBERAL “FAKE NEWS” MEDIA?

    “With such relatively clean air throughout America, how can even reputable news agencies like…” Reuters, BBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, the AP “… CONTINUE spreading the well-worn lie that the United States is one of the “biggest polluters” in the world?”

    FACT: The countries with slightly lower air pollution than USA have populations that are .00033% to 10.8% of the US population

    FACT: The countries with slightly lower air pollution than USA have land areas that are as small as 0.000071% with one exception, Canada with about 1.5% more than US land area

    http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/phe/oap_exposure/atlas.html
    Countries with mean air pollution annual concentrations of FIVE (5) The lowest measured:
    • Brunei Darussalam pop: 408,786 (175th) 2,226 sq mi (172nd)
    • New Zealand pop: 4,791,2605 (123rd) 103,483 sq mi (76th)
    • Solomon Islands pop: 642,000 (162nd) 11,000 sq mi (142nd)

    Countries with mean air pollution annual concentrations of SIX (6)
    • Australia pop: 24,485,200 (51st) 2,969,907 sq mi (6th)
    • Fiji pop: 909,389 (161st) 7,056 sq mi (156th)
    • Liberia pop: 4,503,000 (125th) 43,000 sq mi (103rd)
    • Micronesia pop: 106,104 (192nd) 271 sq mi (191st)
    ( 0.00033% pop & 0.000071% area of USA )
    • Sweden pop: 10,023,893 (88th) 173,860 sq mi (55th)

    Countries with mean air pollution annual concentrations of SEVEN (7)
    • Canada pop: 35,151,728 (38th) 3,855,100 sq mi (2nd)
    ( Less than 11% US population )
    • Finland pop: 5,488,543 (113th) 130,666 sq mi (64th)
    • Vanuatu pop: 286,429 (188th) 4,706 sq mi (164th)

    Countries with mean air pollution annual concentrations of EIGHT (8)
    • Estonia pop: 1,315,635 151st) 17,505 sq mi (132nd)
    • Iceland pop: 332,529 (172nd) 39,682 sq mi (106th)
    • USA pop: 325,145,963 (3rd) 3,796,742 sq mi (3rd)

    COMPARE USA WITH THESE PLACES:

    Saudi Arabia pop: 33,000,000 (40th) 830,000 sq mi (12th) 127
    India pop: 1,326,572,000 (2nd) 1,269,219 sq mi (7th) 66
    China pop: 1,373,541,278 (1st) 3,705,407 sq mi (4th) 59
    Iran pop: 79,966,230 (18th) 636,372 sq mi (17th) 40
    Russia pop: 144,463,451 (9th) 6,592,800 sq mi (1st) 17
    Switzerland*** pop: 8,401,120 (99th) 15,940 sq mi (135th) 13

    *** Switzerland, considered the ‘Gold Standard’ for clean air in most people’s minds. Reality, NOT.

    FACT: Did you know, China and India are exempt from the Paris Climate accord for at least 13 years?

    FACT: Did you know that the accord is non-binding? Meaning: any country can change the standard it sets for itself…as many times as it wants?

    • Kris Johanson says:

      @lu, re: Air quality stats…

      That’s a good list, and you can say the same for water pollution. When the USSR gradually backed out of eastern Europe in the 90’s, we found out these countries were massively polluted (water and soil).

      The U.S. has led the world in water treatment and soil remediation, beginning long before the EPA was formed.

      • Kris Johanson says:

        And as for air pollution, Prof. Cottrell was perfecting the electrostatic precipitator up in No. Calif. way way back – like 1910’s or 1920’s (from memory).

        And anyone who has tried to permit any sort of industrial process knows how strict the Air Resources Board is…..

  41. Buzz says:

    Subject: CLIMATE CHANGE WARNING

    The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
    places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

    Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

    Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the
    report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

    Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

    Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will
    rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.

    I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 , as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 94 years ago. This must have been caused by the Model T Ford’s emissions or possibly from horse and cattle farts.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      You had me going at first with that! …until I read the last paragraph.

      Yes, someone posted a news piece on this forum from that time period where a Norsk fisherman was bemoaning the fact that he caught no white fish and wasn’t able to club any seals that year. Sounded like sour grapes more than anything else

      Melting sea ice doesn’t raise the sea level (re: the last paragraph you quoted above). It’s already displacing its weight.

  42. lance says:

    Did quick check of comments and didn’t see any, but wasn’t it just a few years ago, when the headlines screamed that it went above zero one day!!
    Holding breath for new headlines…..crickets….

  43. circle8 says:

    Did the weather God clear this with the morons like gore, obama, the idiots in Hollywood plus others who claim we are ruining the world with global warming???

  44. AG says:

    Alberto Gorez, the noted S. American Global Cooling Climatologist/Thermodynamics Expert, has been warning the world of the current Maunder Minimum, and upcoming Ice Age for two decades…..but the Zionist/Neocon Pro Greater Israel/Jew World Order Media has ignored him.

  45. cnk guy says:

    I’ve never seen any topic so polarized as this, seems impossible for anyone now to have an intelligent conversation about without it degrading into name calling…
    http://freedomnews.today/

    • Gator69 says:

      It’s impossible for the CAGW faithful to have an intelligent conversation on climate, but skeptics have them all the time.

      What does your link have to do with climate change?

  46. Dale says:

    Tony. (At least) Twice before you have made this claim about Greenland and twice before I pointed out where you have, intentionally or otherwise, left out the last and likely most important statement on the DMI page. This should be clarified for your readership.
    http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

    “Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

    • Rah says:

      And time and again it has been pointed out to you that standard CYA paragraph which has been there for years, does not agree with the data their charts are showing.

    • neal s says:

      Please tell us how many years at 200 Gt/yr it would take to melt just one half of the Greenland ice sheet. You make a big deal out of a non issue.

    • gator69 says:

      Satellite observations…

      Ah yes…

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qovk8_wIdn0

    • AndyG55 says:

      That statement has been there for AGES.

      And its WRONG. There is ZERO proof for the statement.

      Its based on GRACE data which was proven wrong over Antarctica.

      Grace pics up gravity anomalies, and Greenland lies over a major active volcanic regions.

      MEANINGLESS.

      In fact, Greenland ice area is pretty close to its MAXIMUM over 8000 years.

      Why don’t you mention that FACT, Dale.

      And why do you HATE CO2, that provides food for the whole world ??

    • AndyG55 says:

      And just for you education, should you choose to actually get some…

      Here is a chart of the total Greenland Ice Mass since 1900.

      See what’s happening ! TIME TO PANIC, obviously. ;-)

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Dale,

      Since you examined this at least twice before, I assume you know how to reconcile the “disclaimer statement” with the published chart.

      Please clarify it to us. Also, why is this static disclaimer “the most important statement” on the DMI page?

  47. Michael D. Houst says:

    Here’s the true test of global warming.

    How many of the global warming alarmists, government officials, or politicians are purchasing property in the Arctic and Antarctic; or purchasing property at the altitudes that the higher sea levels are predicted to reach?

    ZERO.

    End of discussion.

  48. RAH says:

    Jeremy McManus
    The best test of determining if a poster is worthy of the time it takes to respond to them is their honesty. You failed the test.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      It’s worse than that, RAH. Every now and then you can get a valid argument even from a dishonest man. Jeremy did not show anything beyond verbose drivel.

Leave a Reply

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