The Year Without An Arctic Summer

The Greenland Ice Sheet is gaining near record amounts of ice this year. Very little melting has occurred this summer, which is about to start winding down..

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Temperatures on the Greenland Ice Sheet have been extremely cold, and broke the all-time record for Northern Hemisphere July cold on July 4, at -33C.


Temperatures within 300 miles of the pole have been below normal every day since the beginning of May.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

We see the same pattern year after. Lots of ice gain over most of Greenland’s surface, particularly southeast Greenland.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Despite all evidence to the contrary, government scientists insist on believing fake GRACE data which shows almost all of Greenland losing ice.

Grace_map_La_EN_20160300.png (920×1080)

Science used to involve data, facts, integrity and thought, but now it involves striving for grant money. Meanwhile, the climate mafia insists the Arctic is experiencing record melting, and “cracking up.”

These are criminals, not scientists.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

191 Responses to The Year Without An Arctic Summer

  1. Stewart Pid says:

    Tony is waving a red flag in front of the Grifftard big time with this post. The little turd will be all over this like flies on a bad piece of meat. And of course he will link to his usual nitwit sites.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      As she must. Unusual weather like this extremely cold summer in Greenland is the obvious result of global warming. It’s science and Ms Griff would go amiss if she failed to say so.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Yep, its like leaving bait out for cockroaches, :-)

    • Griff says:

      A civil post is too much to ask for, I assume? If I’m wrong then science based evidence will show it, not first grade name calling.

      Yes, I will point out that there is still 6 weeks of the melt season still to go – it is hardly winding down.

      and yes, there is a lot of precipitation, in the form of snow falling on Greenland now (and over last winter).

      That is not because it is abnormally cold or the climate is not warming: its a function of low pressure systems hanging over the ‘cold spot’ in the ocean off S Greenland -the ‘pool’ of cold meltwater that has been there over recent times and which is itself a symptom of a warming arctic.

      It remains to be seen what the extra snowfall does to long term Greenland ice sheet balance. But the ice sheet is melting and the snowfall does not account for all the mass or involve all the mass loss from Greenland.

      • David A says:

        Minus 33 degree air T is not a result of cold ocean water from ice melting. Neither is every day beliw average air T.
        The low pressure is not the result of your SUV. Exactly zero of your pist is a worthy arguement foe CAGW.

      • Gator69 says:

        Mass loss reported by whom, and based upon what? GRACE? LOL

        Why do you hate poor brown people Ms Griff?

      • sunsettommy says:


        Your comment has nothing in it for me to ponder over.

      • Latitude says:

        Yes, I will point out that there is still 6 weeks of the melt season still to go – it is hardly winding down.
        We’re 16 weeks into the melt season….with only 6 weeks to go
        ….so yes, saying it’s winding down is accurate

        unless someone it trying to spin it

      • Mark Sircus says:

        Griff, what you are suffering from in public is a weak mind that is stalling, holding on to what you hope to be a truth, but obviously you are not well read or worse you read the wrong things meaning you buy hook and sinker the propaganda of the public media that is privately owned by rich monsters who just get their jollies of confusing people like you.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “A civil post is too much to ask for”

        TROLLING with continued , baseless, scientifically ignorant, bed-wetting is NOT CIVIL.

        And FFS stop playing the VICTIM.

        Its PATHETIC.

      • Joe Hill says:

        Global Warming is the theory that explains everything and anything. If the ice melts…it is global warming. If the ice increases…it is global warming. If the ice stays the same…it is global warming. The only problem is a theory that explains everything actualy explains nothing, at least it scientific terms. The theory that explains everything is theology not science. It is the same as saying God did it which may or may not be true but is certainly not subject to scientific negation.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Griff, many pick on you because you have a bad habit of ignoring bucket loads of published science papers given to you,to explain why we think you are wrong.

        You rarely respond with a counterpoint to anything others said against your comments. Not only that you have been wrong,over and over and over,sometimes STUPIDLY wrong.

        You also never admit you are wrong about Dr. Crockford, you ignore the evidence that she is a Zoologist by education,by published material and years of work in the field.

  2. TimA says:

    “Science used to involve data and thought, but now it involves striving for grant money.”
    Unfortunately , due to our modern education system, people hold their word on par with God….and they know it

    • dataSlave says:

      The difference is that medieval peasants knew the gospel truth was being hidden from them behind a veil of Latin. Modern scientific illiterates presume to lecture those of us who actually do understand enough science to question the anointed mouthpieces.

    • Phineas Phogg says:

      Time to revert/return to the “consensus of experts,” circa 1975, as headlined in Newsweek and Time magazines: We are facing the Next Ice Age, with two-mile-high glaciers covering most of Norte America. Whatever.

  3. Ted C says:

    Oh no, the ocean level will drop and communities along the shore that rely on tourism dollars will be devastated! Quick, give the government more control so that “scientists” can be paid to study how we can warm Greenland!

    • Jack Brewer says:

      Don’t show this report to gore !!!

    • David Grimes says:


    • Charles Higley says:

      The idiots would say to give the government whatever powers it needs to make everything good for everybody. Is that not what governments are for? And, if our government cannot handle things world wide that affect us, we should certainly submit the US to UN control with the confidence that the UN will “make the world good for everybody in the WHOLE world.” Sounds like the logic of a three-year-old.

  4. Dusty says:

    Don’t confuse me with facts – it doesn’t support the agenda.

  5. TroyGale says:

    Hmmm, has anyone besides me read “Dark Winter”, by John Casey I believe. It seems this may have been predicted by his study.

    • Bren says:

      I hereby predict that all detrimental weather is caused by climate change and all weather that is liked and enjoyed is due to humanity’s tireless effort to punish productivity, prosperity, and long life.

    • Tim Cohen says:

      Is that like dark matter/dark energy?

    • Joseph Olson says:

      “Corollation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming” by

      Dr Arthur Viterito at Principia Scientific International

      Earth has a variable, fission climate forcing factor

  6. Andy DC says:

    I don’t believe that anyone could grow wheat and barley in Greenland now like the Vikings did during Midieval Warm Period. But I would suspect that Ms. Griff will say there was no Midieval Warm Period, there never were Vikings and that even if there were, they never grew wheat or barley. They lived off whale blubber. And that he has alarmist generated, pal reviewed studies to prove it.

  7. Kruelhunter says:

    TimA, you’ve hit the nail on its proverbial cranial extrusion. The re-writing of history is a primary aim of any rising tyranny as is illustrated by even the most cursory examination of the history of civilization and societies. The process has become both easier and harder with the explosion in data storage and availability. Easier in that date can be more easily altered or deleted at large and harder in that not every storage area can be addressed directly. That’s where the courts come in and lawyers are able to argue matters of history as matters of opinions.

    • tonyheller says:

      Total BS

    • Over half the years since 1950, when CO2 increases caused by the 1920 to 1940 warming were greatest, global temperature has either been flat or decreasing. Central England temperature records going back 500 years show periods of much more rapid warming than present warming periods, which are modest and react primarily to the natural end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. The Holocene Climatic Optimum of 9,000 years ago was the warmest period of the past 10,000 years, and following warm period – Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and present- were each cooler than their predecessor. The Hockey Stick was based on a few cherry-picked proxies that somehow were able to overlook the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age,. two periods that science has incontrovertibly demonstrated had global existence.

      • Latitude says:

        Central England temperature records going back 500 years ….

        Have exactly the same linear slope before CO2 and after CO2…
        Which is impossible according to global warming theory

    • Chris Long says:

      The University of East Anglia GW data all the Limey predictions are based upon was admitted to be falsified. It was a yuge scandal. How soon we forget…

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      “You can only be smacked in the face by evidence so many times and not see some kind of pattern,” says scientist.

      Truth be told, it looks a little hot in The Independent picture. A great way to illustrate global warming science to the readership. Only rabid deniers would reject such evidence.

    • Sam says:

      Canada is prosecuting Mann for his fraudulent hockey stick climate hokey pokey

    • CheshireRed says:

      Michael Mann (and by extension very likely his hockey stick graph) is on the cusp of an absolute legal rinsing that on a bad day for Mann could be a game-changer for AGW theory (and him) and lo! – a hugely supportive article from a fellow ‘scientist’ fawning over Michael and his hockey stick is published! What are the odds, eh?

    • William Hoy says:

      It’s an editorial. Calling it a study implies a connection to science to mislead the uninformed. It just repeats the claims that others have made.

      Mann is a fraud. His graph is based on 17 samples where the gold standard would be 1000 when possible. The variance came from one sample. To pretend that this is science is totally unethical.

      For the record CO2 levels have been hundreds of times higher in the geological past.

      Mann is now in hot water in a court in Australia for refusing to prevent his evidence.

      These claims always involve situations which are not replicated easily.

      None of the 60+ computer models have been able to predict either the Roman warm period or the little ice age.

      Go read something other than propaganda.

      • jackbenimble333 says:

        I generally agree with you. But the person who used 17 samples with only one causing the blade of the hockey stick was I believe Keith Briffa. His hockey stick was driven by ONE tree. McIntyre over at Climate Audit eviscerated him.

        And I believe Michael Mann’s legal problems are in Canada rather than Australia.

    • Anon says:

      Essentially what they are saying is that the recent warming is recorded in these “natural” thermometers.

      We know that there are significant problems in seeing the CO2 to warming trend correlation in the current:

      1] ocean ship/ buoy data
      2] satellite data
      3] land thermometer data

      These are all man made instruments designed to accurately and precisely measure temperature and they don’t detect the correlation signal without serious “adjustment”. Yet, lo and behold, these natural thermometers do what the man made instruments do not!?

      So we I suppose we are all going to need to go out and buy dowsing rods now?

      Most likely the study is corrupted with confirmation bias (at best) or just searching for / reporting samples, locations and methods that yield the Hockey Stick results (at worst).

      If you are ever wondering why none of the Climate Models seem to be of any predictive value, this is probably the origin. If bad and / or manipulated data is inputted, how can you expect correct predictions to be outputted?

      Sadly, with the billions or dollars in research money available, it is much easier to create and distribute this stuff than it to spend the time and effort to debunk it all.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Um.. trees GROW with increased CO2. !!!!!

      Tree rings are basically pointless as a temperature proxy.

      Too many other confounding factors.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Vanessa, the article is garbage,since those “natural” thermometers are poorly defined and lacks data.

      The use of the most debunked Hockey Stick paper, alone destroys the credibility of the article.Heck it even contradicts itself…

      The NAS and the Wegman reports,showed why the h.s. paper lacks credibility. Climate Audit along with their published papers exposed the shoddy statistical methods.

      The AGW conjecture has been WRONG for decades now, from the failed Tropical “hotspot” projections, to failed Per decade warming projections,to failed increased number of hurricanes/tornadoes, to failed in the increase in drought and wildfires and more.

      Virtually all the warming since the 1970’s have been because of El-Nino/ENSO changes,

  8. Tom A says:

    I am heading to Greenland next month. I hope it does not snow but will be dressing warmly just the same.

  9. Bruce Greer says:

    As to growing grains on Greenland, read Jared Diamond’s Collapse in which he describes the remnants of dairy farming structures. Most dairy cattle do not do well on whale blubber.

    • RAH says:

      They still to this day raise some sheep in Greenland. When they have summers like this they have to import most all the fodder.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        I know quite a few sailors in Colorado. I never understood it other than knowing one can’t argue against passion.

        • RAH says:

          They must have gotten there because they put an oar over their shoulder and walked inland until someone asked them what it was.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Maybe, but the other theory is that they came because it’s safe here for sailors.

            Sailor from Norfolk-based USS Wasp found safe in Colorado

            NORFOLK, Va. – A US Navy Sailor who was reported missing from the USS Wasp has been located in Colorado Springs, according to NCIS officials.

            Gage Brady, 21, turned himself in to NCIS officials and is in custody.

            When asked why he left, Brady told CPD officers he just decided to drive to Colorado.


            It doesn’t say whether he took his oar from the Wasp but it seems he didn’t walk.

          • RAH says:

            I never considered it to be “safe” to be considered AWOL or a deserter and if the later at the very least end up with a less than honorable discharge. Working as a kid at my fathers business back in the early 70’s I saw a recently hired employee that I had gone to HS with caught by the FBI for desertion from the USMC. One of the two agents yelled at him “Don’t try to run Roger” and he didn’t and was taken away peacefully. Now days I understand that as long as they have no warrant on them for some other crime they really don’t even go looking for them and only snatch them up when it’s convenient or as in the case described when they turn themselves in.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            True, but even the most deluded global warming freaks acknowledge that this sailor was safe from sea level rise in Colorado. ?

          • RAH says:

            BTW CW
            Here is what the WASP is up to now.
            “ATLANTIC OCEAN (July 13, 2017) Sailors refuel an F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighter aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1). Wasp is underway acquiring certifications in preparation for their upcoming homeport shift to Sasebo, Japan where they are slated to relieve the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) in the 7th Fleet area of operations. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Zhiwei Tan)”

            The current Wasp, is the 11th vessel to have that name during US naval history. The first was in 1775.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            I knew there were a few including prewar/WWII Wasp but I didn’t know there were so many.

            A great night picture.

      • Per Bondesen says:

        When I grew up in Denmark in the 1950s the best lamb meat we could buy would be that coming from Greenland.

        • RAH says:

          Perhaps because they have been doing sheep husbandry long enough that their stock is actually becoming it’s own breed?

      • Per Bondesen says:

        Some sheep …. the annual production of slaughtered sheep and lamb is ca. 20,000. Not bad for Greenland with a human population of 56,000.

        • RAH says:

          Not Iceland, Greenland, nor Denmark make the top 100 in sheep production regardless of population. Greenland ranks 148th world wide. So yea “some sheep”.

          The per capita ratio is greatly effected by the fact that there are very few potential occupations because there is very little industry. You can’t really make a living being a farm hand on a Greenland sheep farm so there are few, thus limiting the size of the herds to the heads that can be handled by a family sized operations.

    • R. Shearer says:

      Maybe they were Orca cows, now extinct due to climate change.

  10. Ben Dover says:

    The Truth can sometimes be Inconvenient.

  11. Paul B says:

    It’s the beginning of the Grand Solar Minimum. Very little sun spot activity is the hall
    mark of the GSM.This lower level Solar activity if prolonged into multi solar cycles that are on average 11 years each will in a shot amount of time will cool the Earth down,
    and then we will be hearing that the Earth’s Climate has changed.Sorry Al Gore,The Sun Earth relation is the determiner of our climate.It’s all on the record from the Earth’s past and that is the truth of the matter.

  12. Maliwa says:

    I just cannot understand why scientists has such a hard time to finally prove to the world that there is no global watming
    Allowing al gore to make a secong climate change movie

    • Anon says:

      If you are a scientist, you could try. But who will fund your research? Who will publish it? How will you get tenure without funding and publications? How will you exist on a liberal college campus when you publicly declare that you have doubts about the climate record?

      That is why there is no scientific proof to the contrary. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” ~ Upton Sinclair

      I suggest this for further reading:

    • Latitude says:

      to finally prove….

      oddest part, they can’t even prove it to themselves…..would, could, might, maybe

      For 30 years recently…..but really for over 100 years…they have been trying to prove global warming…

      But as long as we let them get away with it…they will

      • David A says:

        Anon says, “That is why there is no scientific proof to the contrary”

        I must disagree. Between this site, the NIPCC, and CO2 Science there is overwhelming scientific evidence that CAGW is false. (The work of Climate Audit, WUWT etc… should also be mentioned.)

        It is true that all of the above reports posts, data records, etc… are IGNORED by the perpetrators of the CAGW farce.

  13. Jeff says:

    Al Gore (man/bear/pig), The UN, Leonardo Di-crap-rial obviously are not getting these memos!

  14. Julia Hoffman says:

    Wow. What a kick in the teeth to leftists, for the climate to take the fear factor out of global warming hysteria by cooling off without any human intervention at all, right on the heels of President Trump rejecting the Paris Accord on climate change.

    Kinda looks like maybe facts, such as the weather, stock market, unemployment and declining immigration, are proving Trump’s calls to be good ones, despite the most histrionic efforts of seditionists to undermine him.

    Talk about inconvenient truths!

  15. Looks at the Data says:

    Yes, “Very little melting has occurred this summer” in Greenland. However, according to the data you cite, Greenland is not losing mass through melting, it is through the calving that occurs.

    According to DMI (the source of these graphs):
    “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.”

    NASA even admits that calving is the main source of mass loss. This is perhaps caused by warmer waters touching the outlets of these glaciers? What’s more interesting, to me, is why the winter was so warm and the summer so cold…

    • tonyheller says:

      The GRACE data is notoriously unreliable.

    • Gator69 says:

      Calving is not melting. Calving occurs regardless of temperature.

      • David A says:

        Calving increases as the ice sheet grows. The oceans do not pull the ice edge in. The ice build up pushes out via gravity.

        CAGW folk are backwards; They think oceans pull ice in, and they push chains to move them.

        • Gator69 says:

          I studied Geology and Climatology at a major university, and glaciers are what got me interested in the science on the first place.

          • David A says:

            I shpould explain the chain analogy. I used to wprk setting up trade shows. An old teamster walked by us dragging a 12 foot lock up chain. We were on break and one of the crew asked, ” Jasper, what are you doing dragging that chain?”

            Jasper replied, ” Did you ever try pushing one”

            CAGW advocates are pushing chains.

    • RAH says:

      Winter warm and summer cold? Your talking about anomalies and not actual temperatures right? And last winter in Greenland was anything but warm no matter how one chooses to show the data.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

      That statement has been there for ages.

      There is no measured science backing it up.

      Greenland is actually very near its peak mass/area in 8000 years.

      • pmc47025 says:

        Maybe the ~200Gt/yr estimate came from a U of C paper (based on GRACE)?

        Interesting that the projected .46 mm/y (2000-2008) to .75 mm/y (after 2006) sea level rise rate increase isn’t supported by tide gauges.

      • R O says:

        Thinking about it logically, would not excess ice build-up have to go somewhere, including by breaking off if it “grows sideways” ? Just a thought…

      • Looks at the Data says:

        Great point! So how can we trust any of the these charts that the DMI published when they make statements like “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.” If this statement is not backed by real science, then the rest of their statements should be discredited too (all graphs shown in this post).

        I’m not advocating either way here, I just want people to see the whole picture. My comment is just a lesson in blindly listening to “experts” cherrypick facts and figures from publications and articles without telling the whole story. BOTH sides of the human-made climate debate do this and it disgusts me.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          “… and it disgusts me.”

          The people behind the worldwide Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change campaign don’t care about the truth, data, science or some such. We know because they said so.

          Their propaganda is politics of the dirtiest kind and the fight against it is not for the faint-hearted.

      • AndyG55 says:

        The mid to late 1970s were the coldest period in probably a century. There would have been a large build-up of the snow and ice on the surface of Greenland

        1979 was the very trough of the AMO, so naturally there has been a cyclic warming period, and glaciers, believe it or not, actually “flow”.. just rather slowly. It only makes sense that there would be calving a decade or so later, to balance out the massive gains of the 1970s

        Fettwels shows that the period 1970 to 1980 was a period of net mass GAIN, all totally in line with the AMO.

        NOTHING to do with CO2 or any AGW religious scam.

    • KTM says:

      A glacier is a river of ice that must either melt away, evaporate, or calve. If the glaciers are calving it means they are NOT melting.

      Blaming global warming for the ice calving off the coasts of Greenland is like blaming a Mississippi River flood on too much gravity.

    • NME666 says:

      thanks for showing your ignorance of what is happening. Your “yah butt” post proves your ignorance of facts general science, and physics.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Calving is a sign of expanding glacial field.

  16. Ted G says:

    The real Truth is Convenient!

  17. Ted G says:

    The real Truth is inconvenient! So is spellcheck…

  18. RAH says:

    Calving is explained right at the DMI site using this diagram. Basically when the mass of the ice sheet fails to grow in the interior over time calving will decrease because there is no new ice to push the sheet out at the edges. So increased calving means there has been an increase in mass and not a decrease as the alarmists would have us believe.

    And that statement: ” The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.” Has been there for years and cannot reflect in any way the current reality. If their going to keep such a statement they need to explain why!

    • AndyG55 says:

      “So increased calving means there has been an increase in mass ”

      Almost certainly with a lag time of a few years. 1979 was the coldest period in 100 years, right at the bottom of the AMO. SMB was above zero for that period. All that extra ice has to go somewhere. !!

  19. Truman ross says:

    Al Gore will make lots of mullah from this news, somehow.

  20. Susan says:

    I wish all you bright people would include a short vita so I could know whom to believe.

    • RAH says:

      Well don’t believe me because I’m just a dumbass truck driver, business manager, and former SF soldier that happens to understand that “climate change” is not about climate or weather but is a lever for helping the government convince us to give up more control over our lives and individual destinies.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      That’s not how it works, Susan, and it would not do anything useful for you. Science history books are littered with meanwhile refuted hypotheses that were considered settled science and endorsed by the luminaries of the day.

      Personalities don’t matter. In the end there is no other way than following the evidence. It is work but it is also more intellectually rewarding.

    • gator69 says:

      Susan, I don’t want anyone to “believe” me. I much prefer that they check my facts, and realize that I am indeed speaking truths. Facts do not change, no matter who you are.

      If you are looking for faith, you need to go where you find the other “believers”.

    • pmc47025 says:

      Does an anonymous resume give a post more credibility? In college, I received “A”s in Thermodynamics I+II and Physics I+II (OK, not much cred here, but it’s a fun story!). I earned a “D” in “Programming in C” and spent the next 30 years (and counting) writing C code for embedded systems.

    • arn says:

      Well-i’m an AGW climate scientist
      and you are the girl which still believes everything i say,
      ignoring the fact that ALL of my(and my friends) apocalyptical predictions
      have failed 100% for decades-
      and thanks to guys like you we can still get away with everything,
      because your critical thinking skills are inexistent.

      In fact a 5 year old would instantly realise that a bunch of people who make wrong predictions for decades are liars and traitors because of their bad track records-
      but you can not.
      The only thing you can do is ignoring all the failures of your science gods and waiting for the next ‘normal ‘ anomalie which has occured a thousand times in the past 1000 years to be presented to you by the media as armageddon and proof of global warming instead of what it simply is: ‘just another heatwave’.

      The only thing that has changed is the way they present you the current weather:
      They have just changed neutral language describing uninteressting anomalies into
      fear porn semantics.
      Using such methods has proven to be very successfully:
      That way they convinced people like you that a fascist intolerant apartheid religion
      which was created by a mass murdering pedophile
      and where slavery and pedophile are legal
      and which has killed millions of people and gained millions of square miles of territory in the past decades
      is the the religion of peace while committing 30.000 ++ terror attacks
      and destroying thousands of churches in this century
      is the religion of peace.

    • David A says:

      Susan, look up NIPCC. Read their reports, all referenced amd written by well published PHDs.

  21. Louis Nye, the fake science guy, will be indignant and will dispute all facts.

    • M A R says:

      Bill Nye, the “Science Guy” has a degree in mechanical engineering and nothing in the hard sciences. He is a fraud…

      • SkepticGoneWild says:

        Not that I agree with Bill Nye, but a degree in mechanical engineering is a very rigorous degree, and is essentially a degree in applied physics. It has everything to do with the “hard sciences”.

        Just go to, for example, the Stanford website and look at the course requirements for a BS in Mechanical Engineering.

        • tonyheller says:

          Bill Nye is a total fraud

        • AndyG55 says:

          But nothing to do with climate science AT ALL.

          He obviously COULD NOT cut it as a mechanical engineer. Passes.. make for asses.

          • R2Dtoo says:

            As in all fields, 50% of the graduates were in the bottom half of their class. And somebody had to be the very bottom! Just look at the grade distributions of the Ivy League schools.

        • RAH says:

          SkepticGoneWild says:
          “a degree in mechanical engineering is a very rigorous degree, and is essentially a degree in applied physics. It has everything to do with the “hard sciences”.”

          The value of a degree is really based on what one does with it after they have it. How that knowledge gained is built upon and applied is what counts.

          “Peter Wadhams ScD, is professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge”

          So there is a guy that works in the same department at the same University where Newton held the chair. Yet he is obviously a kook having wrongly predicted year after year that the Arctic would be ice free and declaring that associates of his were being assassinated because of their work on “climate change”.

  22. MAR100 says:

    Seems to me we have two choices, kill off the human race or make the environmental activists live like the rest of us. No private jets, large houses, NYC/DC co-opt apartments, large boats, limos or million dollar salaries. Bring these geniuses down to the level of how real people live. Climate change is the second “Holy Sacrament” of the left with abortion being the first. Al was wrong before and is wrong now, climate change has made him a multi billionaire through government subsidiaries and handouts. Its called Weather “Al” nothing nefarious.

  23. There was a “cold” snap in Argentina and southern Brazil last couple of days, with power outages in Curitiba–not far from the huge power dam. Snow is about as common in these parts as in Houston.

  24. Flap says:

    Al Gore-ithms business model is based on one thing…FEAR.
    The predictions of gloom and doom that he made 10+ years ago have never materialized.
    All lies to fatten Al’s Fat Boy bank account.
    Wonder if Tipper gets any of his ‘dirty money’?

    • TimA says:

      It’s scary how much control and manipulative influence these people have. It’s like Michael Chrichton’s book “State of Fear” coming to life.

  25. David Feaster says:

    The scientific, debate-ending, definitive causes of natural earth climate change were discovered and published in 1912 by astronomer, climatologist, geophysicist, mathematician, technologist, NASA scientist and distinguished Tesla Society Member Milutin Milankovic. They are the Milankovic Cycles.

  26. Cody says:

    I blame the Russians.

  27. Psalmon says:

    Caution, the Hottest Year in the History of Planet Earth is coming, again.

  28. ClimateYogi says:

    David , the last section of your link states this .
    “The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle.”
    Perhaps not debate ending ;-)

    • Earth’s so-called “natural cycle” is negligible compared to the interplanetary interactions within our solar system which affect the Earth’s axis, hence, angle of incident to the Sun, as well as orbital path, proximity to, excursion around, and distance from the Sun at any given time. Just as with the Earth’s lunar cycle, and the effects of the mass and gravitational forces of the Moon’s orbit on Earth’s oceans create their tidal activity (as well as stabilize our orbit); the much greater mass and gravitational forces of the much larger planets and celestial bodies in our solar system affect the Earth’s axis, and the path of its orbit around the Sun. Anyone who understands the basic settled geoscience of the lunar cycles, should easily understand the MILANKOVIC CYCLES as the axiomatic, cosmological cause of natural Earth Climate Change. The larger, over arching point – scientifically substantiated and comprehensively documented by the (previously) posted link.

    • gator69 says:

      Sorry, but…

      Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle…

      … is not supported by science. But if you believe it is, then please…

      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.

      • On the contrary. It is my contention that the The Milankovic Cycles are documented, long-standing, peer reviewed, scientific proof that Earth Climate Change is a natural occurrence – and result of the mass and gravitational interaction of the celestial bodies (planets, moons, and sun), within our solar system. Moreover, I would contend that the astounding lack of awareness of the Milankovic Cycles (most notably it’s virtual absence from the entire Earth Climate Change conversation), lends it an additional layer of credibility – as conspicuously suppressed, axiomatic, debate ending, scientific evidence of Earth’s natural, cosmological climate change.

  29. Philip says:

    Below excerpt is taken from

    “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.”

    Anyone would like to comment?

    • neal s says:

      Philip asks if anyone would like to comment. Sure.

      With a total mass of around 2,900,000 gigatons this loss of 200 Gt is less than 0.007 percent. At that rate it will take about 145 years to even lose 1% of the total. (Scary isn’t it) (Yawn…) Wake me up when there is something actually alarming.

      Even if the loss were twice as much, it would still take 72 years to lose just 1% of the total. But the alarmists won’t tell you this, because it isn’t alarming.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Greenland is still basically at its very maximum ice area in 8000 years.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Here is a graph of the Total Greenland Ice mass since 1900

        Notice anything ??

      • Griff says:

        The bit we need to be interested in the the change at the right hand side from 1900 on.

        If the conditions influencing the ice sheet change due to a new factor, then comparisons with what went before are less relevant.

        • RAH says:

          Why; when it has been obviously much lower in the past and the dip comes right after the cold of the LIA which was one of the most miserable times in human history?

        • pmc47025 says:

          “If the conditions influencing the ice sheet change due to a new factor, then comparisons with what went before are less relevant.”

          Griff admits she (he?) knows nothing about science.

        • David A says:

          What change from 1900? That is the beginning of the chart. What conditions changed? What do you know about the AMO, ocean current flux, jet stream flux, storm system decadal variations, decadal variations in all of the above, all major factors in the amount of sea ice.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor little bed-wetter..

          Here is a graph of the Total Greenland Ice mass since 1900.

          Notice anything, nappy-boy ??

        • AndyG55 says:

          “The bit we need to be interested in the the change at the right hand side from 1900 on”

          Poor bed-wetter..

          NO, we need to get a longer term perspective.

          In your case, more than your 12-18 years sliming about your basement.

    • sunsettommy says:

      If the ice field was losing mass for long,calving would diminish over time.

    • RAH says:

      “but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet.”
      Calving does not “add” to the SMB, it subtracts from it.

      Though the vast majority of information and data from DMI is very good, that whole paragraph, which it has been noted before has been there for years, needs to be rewritten.

      That paragraph and the sudden change they made in the way they calculate sea ice extent a couple years ago are the only two items I have seen at DMI which are highly questionable.

    • Latitude says:

      Ice is flowing…it’s the buildup of snow/ice in the back that pushes it out the front..calving
      No build up..pressure in the back….no claving

    • Latitude says:

      “”For example, ice loss from Greenland (which was large in 2011-12) has recently reversed itself with huge gains made in the last year. “”

  30. Gordon Franke Ph D(retired chemistry faculty) says:

    April 2014 I began an infrared study of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. My conclusion was that for the last 200 years it could not have been responsible for more than 0.25 degrees C. of global temperature rise. The greenhouse gas effect of all greenhouse gases is self limiting. It is very, very close to its limit for CO2. The gas works by absorbing certain characteristic wavelengths of IR . Additional gas has no effect when all of the IR at those wavelengths is absorbed.
    Absorption by CO2 traps certain wavelengths of earth origin IR as heat in the atmosphere. The heat is trapped between the surface and high altitude temperature that increases from 12 kilometers to 50 kilometers until the temperature is high enough that it transfers as much heat to the surface as it gains from the IR. The temperature of the surface increase until it emits enough IR at untrapped wavelengths to equal the energy of the IR trapped by CO2. This is the greenhouse effect.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “The heat is trapped between the surface and high altitude temperature”

      NO, it is not.

      You also need to consider the relax time of re-emittance being several magnitudes longer than collision time with other molecules.

      That means that any absorption is immediately transferred to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere, where it is dealt with by the normal gravity based thermal cooling.

      CO2 is nothing but another mechanism for transfer of energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere.

    • RAH says:

      It the heat is trapped between the surface and high altitude then where is the upper troposphere hot spot over the tropics that the physics the models the IPCC uses demands?

    • gator69 says:

      “Trapped” is an alarmist term.

    • sunsettommy says:


      CO2 Absorbs,ENERGY, not heat,which is a boundary phenomenon.

      IR wavelengths itself is energy arriving in wave packets into the atmosphere,CO2 absorbing them doesn’t create a boundary layer for heat to show up,which is why heat can’t be “trapped” in the first place.

  31. Eric says:

    More ice mass equals more reflection of sunlight and less surface warming. Heavy snowfalls on top of this area will push those glaciers towards the coast. Look up “Glacier Girl” to see how far the ice moves in 60 years.

    • gator69 says:

      Yep! That link is bullocks alright. Thanks for the update Les.

      • David Appell says:

        Funny — Heller himself cited that same link just a week or two ago.

          • David Appell says:

            That calculation is garbage — it ignores albedoes.

            And you never answered my earlier point.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Rotten Appell, we KNOW you haven’t got a clue.

            No need to keep showing it.

            NO Greenhouse effect on Venus. GET OVER IT.

            Also NO CO2 SIGNATURE in satellite data or sea level data or, in fact, ANYTHING except plant growth, on Earth.

          • gator69 says:

            How about this gem of an exchange…

            # Gator 2015-04-10 11:06
            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.

            Come on genius, give it a shot! :lol:

            # David Appell 2015-04-10 11:12
            I already gave you citations that answer both your questions. It’s been your choice not to go read them.

            # Gator 2015-04-10 11:15
            No, you have not. We went over this last night?

            Are you too stupid to follow the thread, and too stupid to understand the questions?

            Let’s try again Davey…

            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.

            # David Appell 2015-04-10 11:20
            If you spend 1/10th the time reading the science I pointed to instead of obsessively hectoring me with the same questions, you might learn something.

            # Gator 2015-04-10 11:26
            David you cannot possibly be as stupid as you pretend.

            You claim that all climate forcings have been identified, ordered from most to least effective, and quantified.

            You also claim to be able to produce a peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            That is utter bullsh*t and you know it.

            So pony up cowboy! Admit you are a fraud!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “it ignores albedos”

            Rotten to the core…. With that one moronic statement you have proven one thing only.


          • David Appell says:

            gator69, I like that you pay so much attention to my posts elsewhere.

            Now perhaps you can address the points I brought up there.

          • gator69 says:

            David, how about you admit youa are a liar, and we’ll call it a night.

            And don’t feel flattered, I save quotes from the looniest of the loons, like you.

            # JTG@JTGILLICK.COM 2010-11-30 22:21
            From FIRST POST (2010-11-25 1745) to CLOSE OF DIALOGUE (2010-11-29 0000)


            TOTAL WORDS (149 posts): ~16,000

            “JTG” (39 posts): ~5,500

            RESPONDERS: (110 posts): ~10,250

            RATIO: ~1:2



            – Count was arrived at with a first run of filler deleted.

            – In this context, “filler” refers to words and expression equivalents of HELLO and GOODBYE (and all variations of) – and other social exchanges clearly not attendant on the subject(s) of the particular post as a whole.

            – Because rating pertinence/non-pertinence is a judgment call, the total numbers should be taken as falling within a +/- range of ~1%.

            Lomg lost brother?

          • David Appell says:

            gator, you’re only capable of insults, not discussion. how has that worked out for you?

          • gator69 says:

            David, you are a known liar. Arrogance is ignorance, and misplaced arrogance is the epitome of ignorance and you. You claim you know things that you do not know, and cannot know. Conversing with you is a monumental waste of time, but I am happy to take a moment to show others exactly what you are. Go stink up some other site with your pathetic lies.

          • David Appell says:

            g69: You still haven’t provided any scientific data, or what’s causing the climate to change “naturally,” as you claim. Insults are not a substitute for the science.

            “What’s Really Warming the World,” Bloomberg Business, 6/24/15

          • AndyG55 says:


            Rotten Appell thinks that a cartoon slide show put together by some moron on Bloomberg is science.

            Still, its probably is FAR more science than rotten appell will ever know. !!

            You have YET AGAIN, marked yourself as a scientifically illiterate FOOL, rotten appell.!!

          • AndyG55 says:

            The moronic cartoon is WRONG in its very first chart.

            That graph is NOT the observed temperature.

            Its a corrupted, maladjusted, fabricated, fantasy that bears very little resemblance to any sort of reality.

            You KNOW that., and yet you still bother posting a link. That just moronically STUPID of you, rotten appell.. as always.

            Then they go on to compound their idiocy by thinking that TSI is the only solar variable.

            Its PETTY IGNORANCE from an anti-science CHILD-MINDED twerp.
            No wonder you fell for it, rotten appell.

          • gator69 says:

            More lies from David… (yawn)…

        • AndyG55 says:

          Rotten Appell, dodging , weaving , slithering around..

          … as usual. !

    • AndyG55 says:

      WOW, look, the Arctic temperature has been BELOW AVERAGE since May.

      Thanks for that, rotten appell. !!

      • gator69 says:

        David thinks the blue line is the seasonal mean.

      • Andy DC says:

        The Bloomberg chart represents nothing but forcing the data to fit the hypothesis by means of data “adjustments”.

        On the contrary, the hundreds, if not thousands of charts and videos produced by Tony on this site clearly show that the phony hockey stick is bunk. On top of that, Tony’s charts are based on actual temperature records from long term weather stations that are available to anyone that cares to look them up. When the facts are on your side, there is no need for fraudulent data adjustments!

Leave a Reply

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