How Government Climate Alarmists Operate

A DMI employee accused me of making up a fake DMI map yesterday after I posted a graphic showing how Arctic sea ice thickness and volume has increased since 2008.

Here was the original map

Here was my map. I masked out the thin ice because as every climate alarmist knows, thin ice isn’t important. The map I created is the one alarmists normally say they want to see.

Ruth then made an incredibly stupid tweet where she agreed with me about the importance of thick ice, but thought she was disagreeing with me.

Then, every moron on the Internet jumped in, including Jim Hunt

And finally Ruth went on this tirade, where Ruth said everything – except admit she was wrong.

There was nothing wrong with my graphic. It showed exactly what I said it showed, which is also exactly what climate alarmists say they want to see. Then a DMI employee made a idiotic baseless accusation and piled on one ridiculous tweet after another.

But the funniest tweet of the day is her last one, where she begrudgingly admits that Greenland gained ice this year.

This sort of ridiculous behavior is exactly why I have zero confidence in government climate people. She made a scurrilous and incorrect accusation and then refused to retract or apologize.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

119 Responses to How Government Climate Alarmists Operate

  1. AndyG55 says:

    I wonder if they know that there has been a 14% increase in 70% or more sea ice coverage since just last year. !!

    The ONLY recourse these brain-washed cretins have is DENIAL

  2. AndyG55 says:

    It really is SO HILARIOUS to see the base-level IGNORANCE of all the sea ice bed-wetters in those face-plants.

    Well done , Tony , for drawing out even more of the scientifically and mathematically inept AGW fools :-)

    Still waiting for one of these brain-stupor fools to tell me what the current level of Arctic sea ice SHOULD be.

    Should it be up with the levels of the coldest period of the last 10,000 years, the LIA?

    or should it be lower than now, like in the MWP?

    or even lower, like the first 7000 or so years of the Holocene?

    Come on Ruth, Joseph, Dominic, Pierre……. we’re all awaiting your answer.

    Do you have the COURAGE to answer ?

    Or are you just like Jimbo the coward?

    • Andy DC says:

      Tony has the utter nerve to present actual data in a highly coherent and verifiable fashion, rather than using the warm biased manipulated data that is routinely pulled from the rear ends of alarmists. How dare he confuse people with the facts!

  3. AndyG55 says:

    Hey Ruth, if you have the COURAGE to respond.

    Did you know that , according to the Russian, multi-year sea ice is actually INCREASING.

    Or were you IGNORANT of that as well??

  4. AndyG55 says:

    How has Greenland Ice fared this year?

    Well let’s see.

    Massive SMB gain.. is that what you want us to see, Ruth.

    And just for your education, here is a graph of the total Greenland ice mass since 1900

    Provide a corrected graph if you think it is incorrect.

    Come on Ruth .. come and play tango..

    Do you have the balls…. or are you a cowardly, dishonest, little effeminate like Jimbo

  5. AndyG55 says:

    BIG question……

    Will these IGNORANT twerps have the GUTS to come and put their case here?

    Or will they stick to twitter, where they are protected by censoring of the socialist agenda.!!

  6. AndyG55 says:

    It has now been made clear to EVERYONE that…..

    DMI have RABID AGW proponents on their payroll.

    I hope they realise how much this denigrates their reputation and reliability.

    It really does put a serious dent in any trust one can have in their supposed data !

    DMI should fix this MAJOR problem with their integrity immediately.

    Russians seem to be the only ones not caught up in the AGW con !

    • richard verney says:

      Is this why DMI recently got rid of their earlier metric of 15% sea ice (which was showing a good recovery) and replaced it with plots comprised of 30% sea ice (which showed less recovery)?

      PS. I am going by memory that the change was from 15% to 30%. Please correct me if I am wrong on the altered metric.

      • Stewart Pid says:

        Richard I think the % sea ice was the same on the two graphs but the coastal mask was different …. not certain on the % issue but for sure the coastal mask was different. I looked into this a lot because I couldn’t understand how a better (remaining graph) & more accurate coastal mask showed so much less ice than the old graph. But such is climate science, as Tony demonstrates on a near daily basis. Accuracy or truth are routinely sacrificed for the sake of the message.

      • rw says:

        No, it was the 30% metric that disappeared. As I recall, the excuse was that there was a “mistake”. Amusingly enough, a few weeks later the 15% curve showed a precipitous drop that got people like Mark Serreze all excited. Then a few weeks later (during which Tony Heller pointed to some discrepancies with an ice map on the same site), they admitted that there had been a “mistake” and the curve shifted back to a more typical decline. So on this occasion, amazingly enough, they fixed their mistake! (And I was waiting for the 7.5% curve to be unveiled …)

    • Freddy Boom-Boom says:

      I’m thinking that the Chinese are also only playing along publicly, but laughing about it behind closed doors.

  7. Brad says:

    You clearly cherry picked words they did not understand to make them look stupid.

  8. JonA says:

    The inability to say “Sorry, I was wrong.” seems to be pervasive.

  9. Frank K. says:

    I does seem as if the arctic ice follies are ending earlier than normal this year with no melt off in sight – hence the Twitter rant by a lone DMI employee. It will be a long, cold winter…

  10. Rob says:

    The climate change zealots are part of a cult and act as I would expect cultists to which is constant denial of reality and refusal to ever admit they are/were wrong. Of course, those who are higher up in cults know full well it is a farce and keep lying to the zealots and that is what the government officials and many of these climate “scientists” are in this cult. Pretty sad they have no conscience and will keep lying.

    The amusing thing to me is how the AGW cultist beliefs can be blown up by supposed “evil heretics” like Tony using their very own data and charts. I mean jeez, when people can use your OWN DATA to show you are wrong (or blatantly lying) then maybe, just maybe, you need to quit doubling down and cut your losses.

    I also like how Tony throws in the very old newspaper headlines and articles that show this farce has been going on for ages. Maybe someone can find cave engravings from early man talking about it…

  11. Latitude says:

    Just when you think they can’t really be that stupid….

  12. Paul Homewood says:

    And of course the DMI graph itself shows that sea ice volume has increased from well below 5000 km3 to above 5000 km3

  13. Paul Homewood says:

    On Tony’s original post, which Ruth Moron is complaining about, his very first sentence clearly states:

    “The animation below show the huge increase in 1+ meter thick sea ice in the central Arctic since 2008.”

    I cannot see how it can be any clearer!

    • sunsettommy says:


      That is what I said too, in reply to Ruth in the other thread.

      It is obvious that Tony was talking about 1 PLUS Meter of ice increase since 2008.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      It’s clear to you but as Brad pointed out above, Tony cherry-picked words and sentences Ruth didn’t understand! He tricked her and there should be a law against that.

  14. Edmonton Al says:

    People like Ruth talk like this when they are students…
    ” Oh, yes sir, I understand what you are saying sir, I get it now.”

    After the receive their Doctorate…
    ” Don’t tell ME I’m wrong. ” [ I guess if she is never wrong, then she must have gotten 100% on all her tests???]

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      In the good old days of the Soviet Union such people joined the Party at a young age. Life was much simpler then and it took only a phone call or a written memo to silence dissidents. Now the commissars have to argue on the internet. It’s not efficient and something must be done about it.

  15. Jari Salla says:

    Ruth obviously has serious difficulties comprehending even the most simple image processing techniques.

    • wert says:

      Ms Mottram rather likely is involved with conspiracy ideation. Tony is a big oil paid faker, to the extent when she is proven to be mistaken, she does not feel the need to apologise because Tony is paid by big oil, after all. Right Tony? They send you big checks thus you roll in money.

      Where as poor ms Mottram is working for free, at her spare time.

  16. John Edmondson says:

    I can’t wait for the AMO to switch from warm (where it has been since 1995) to cold. This along with PDO explains the variability of the Arctic sea ice.
    I wonder what the explanation will be when this happens , because it will (probably within 5 years).
    Ice age scare mark2 maybe.

  17. Steven Fraser says:

    Hmm. Interesting interaction.

    If DMI had been doing their own ‘trends in arctic ice >1m thick over time’ analysis, they would not have been so surprised by your result.

    While not a trivial amount of work, it would be straightforward for them to produce their own animated gif, even a week-by-week, or produce a ‘stack’ representation (like the energy people do) showing the trends in each range of ice thickness.

    Or, perhaps better yet, they could publish their tabulations from which the graphics are derived, and let the market produce the visualizations.

    Tony, one of your animations I thought was enormously impressive was the multi-year-ice-pump you did, showing how the ice was moved by currents down the greenland coast.

    Thanks for all you do.

  18. TA says:

    We don’t see any of the complainers over here on Tony’s website where the facts can be discussed in detail.

    This website is the place for discussion. Twitter is the website for personal attacks.

    When CAGW advocates don’t have a case to make, they resort to personal attacks. Which means they spend most of their time doing personal attacks, since they don’t have a case they can make.

    This little dustup is just another example.

  19. RAH says:

    I take my coffee black and I would be the vast majority of government paid climate alarmists don’t.

  20. Griff says:

    I will point out that this is an agency of the Danish government, in existence since 1872 and with a massive history of tracking ice conditions from well before the era in which climate change has become important.

    These guys know more about the ice than most…

    • Tom Bakert says:

      How then, pray tell, could Ruthy have completely misunderstood Tony’s straightforward and clearly presented analysis?

      BTW, ever hear of the error in reasoning called “Appeal to Authority”?

      • RAH says:

        The way I read this is that Ruth may have had trouble with the language barrier. She was keyed by the map and didn’t bother to translate the statement of explanation above before reacting and then once her error was pointed out to her was not gracious enough to admit it. Then of course Jim Hunt and his ilk, knowing exactly what Tony tried to dog pile. They are more despicable than I thought them to be and in the future I will be even less civil that I was previously. There isn’t an honest bone in their bodies.

        • XYZ says:

          Thing is, they are small people and therefore very delicate. Always remember fist to apologize what ever you are going to do or say, that will open their communication channels for further discussion.

      • JonA says:

        Her misunderstanding of the presented data is understandable.
        Everyone makes mistakes. The real issue is the dissembling and
        prevarication rather than just immediately admitting the error
        and apologising. It’s no wonder the average layman feels like
        science is getting more like politics every day…

    • Dan Kurt says:

      Mister Double Down has arrived.

      Dan Kurt

    • Pathway says:

      Like any good statist, Griff appeals to authority.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        I will point out that Ms Griff is a veritable institution and a regular at this site. She’s been described as extremely intelligent, she’s just as knowledgable about climate as the best government scientists and she doesn’t comprehend even the most basic scientific and logical concepts.

        The venerable Ms Griff knows she knows more about climate than most …

    • Latitude says:

      “These guys know more about the ice than most…”

      yeah well…one of them is so stupid it makes you doubt everything they do

    • Robert Austin says:

      In the era before climate change became a “cause celebre”, DMI and other was probably inhabited by real scientists. Since climate science has gained notoriety and lavish funding, it has been invaded by mediocre “scientists”. Indeed, this is a problem for the whole of academia. Too many universities, too many graduates with inferior knowledge and ability seeking their sinecures. So the appeal to authority counts for nothing here. We have seen too much misconduct by such authorities.

      • RAH says:

        IOW another version of “follow the money”.

      • Anon says:

        Robert, Honestly, this stuff isn’t even science, at least not recognizable to me. My PhD was in the “hard sciences”, molecular spectroscopy, in particular. In my field you can’t fake data and the peer review process is super tight. I would occasionally get tapped to teach some lower level ecologically oriented undergrad course, ocean acidification for example, and that is how I came into contact with AGW and the climate “science” community. I assumed that peer review was equally as solid for them and was thus “taken-in” by what they were producing. What I am discovering, after hours of sifting through all this, is pathetic… I would wager to bet that most AGW “scientists” would have trouble in a general chemistry class.

    • gator69 says:

      These guys know more about the ice than most…

      Then why did they not understand a simple graphic? Odd that nonexperts had no issue figuring out what was being presented.

      ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’
      -Upton Sinclair

    • AndyG55 says:

      Then they should be able to answer a simple question then..

      What SHOULD the current Arctic sea ice extent be?

      Should it be up there with the extent of the LIA , like in the late 1970’s..

      or should it be far less than current, like in the MWP.

      or even less again, like in the first 7-8000 years of the current interglacial.

      I hope one of the DMI know-it-alls can answer this question for me, please.

      Waiting !!!!!!

      • Andy says:

        That’s a dumb question because unless someone said a value that you agree with, for whatever reason,you would say it was wrong.

        The Arctic does not care about your or your thoughts, it just gets on with things. I’m surprised people still think it reacts to a US people want to spend less money etc due to politics :)

        The Arctic is ambivalent.


        • AndyG55 says:

          COWARD !!

          You and your ilk yap mindlessly about sea ice, when its above what it has been for some 90-95% of the Holocene, only marginally down from the EXTREMES of the LIA.

          Yet you are unable to answer a simple question about what you think it should be.
          TOTALLY PATHETIC. !!!

          • Squidly says:

            It should be ice free in my view. Why not? .. what difference does it make whether or not there is any “sea” ice in the Arctic? .. I won’t effect sea level, would make shipping convenient, and give more space for my jet ski to run.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I’m surprised people still think it reacts to us — people want to spend —- money etc due to politics ”

          Apart from being basically incoherent….. (I’ve tried to fix it for you.)

          You have just described the whole AGW scam.

          Well done. :-)

          Was it just accidental, or did your brain cell fire for a second or two.

        • gator69 says:

          The Arctic is ambivalent.

          am·biv·a·lent – amˈbivələnt
          having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone.

          You believe that ice has feelings and ideas? Is this why you dishonest salesmanism people place it above human life?

          Not Andy

    • rw says:

      Unfortunately, institutional intelligence can only be maintained when there are personnel with the requisite capabilities. One of the subtexts of the entire AGW phenomena is that this is no longer the case.

    • rw says:

      BTW, just what light does this shed on the present argument? You seem to be implying that being in an institution founded in 1872 serves to validate one’s point.

      There seems to be another sophist strategy in evidence here: when all else fails, post a pretentious non sequitur.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Griff,with another appeal to authority fallacy, to bore us with.

      Why not try the more cerebral approach to the posts content instead?

      Oh wait!

    • Robert B says:

      I will point out that this is an agency of the Danish government, in existence since 1872 and set up by Ludwig A. Colding who died in 1888. Even your appeal to authority is lame.

    • Squidly says:

      Hey Griff, you realize that there are still people of “authority” that believe there are martians building canals on Mars, right? … Do you believe in the “authority” of those people too?

    • David A says:

      Griff, are you telling me that, given DMI long history, and Tony produced an accurate chart from their data, Ruth is therefore a horrible student?

      Yes, you are correct.

    • wert says:

      [T]his is an agency of the Danish government, in existence since 1872 and with a massive history of tracking ice conditions from well before the era in which climate change has become important.

      These guys know more about the ice than most…

      Yet they don’t know how to read!

      And, I am not so sure they are the same as 1872 or even 1972. These people are most probably in their fourties and have been doing what they do for less than 20 years.

      Yeah, you should learn to read in 20 years. Or, to behave.

    • Freddy Boom-Boom says:

      Ice, yes. The English language…meh…not so much. (and their ice expertise showed the 5th highest gain on record.)

  21. frederik wisse says:

    This problem is more widespread than you can imagine . Our children are brainwashed by leftist teachers in schools and colleges to believe in global warming , which is actually not happening . Then afterwards this false theory is further elucidated in universities and professional institutions like for instance a highschool of journalism , where you cannot pass final examen without adherence to their final CAGW-truth . Personal critical thinking is made an object of mistrust in their teachings of acceptable group-think . It is funny nowadays that the most original creative thinking in these and other subjects is coming out of Russia , where for nearly an age the state dictated this group-think and the public has turned its back towards it after having experienced its dire consequences . So nowadays nearly the whole MSM and the meteorological institutions are infested with this idiotic group-think .Not only in the USA , but here in Europe the weather-services in Germany , France , UK and Holland for instance are using the same demonic tactics like you experienced with a brainwashed Danish lady . Still the example of Russia is giving hope for the future , you cannot suppress the human mind and character forever .

    • Fred van der Velden says:

      Spot on!

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Russia is an oil & gas driven economy with a per capita GDP of only around US$9,000 (from memory) … comparison U.S. is $60,000, and most industrialized EU countries are around $40-50,000 per capita… and so they don’t have the luxury or the interest in wasting time with this nonsense…

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Some 30 years ago I was invited to come along to a Halloween party in a small town in the plains, way east of Boulder. The hosts I didn’t know were well-to-do ex-Boulderite leftists and all their Progressive friends came decked out in costumes. There were no children around, only adults. I soon found out that all the couples were childless.

        I went to the coolers on the deck and found a man standing there alone, with a bottle of beer in his hand. I understood he met the hosts somewhere and was invited to come. He was a local farmer and he seemed genuinely dumbfounded by the partygoers milling inside. He mentioned his children were running around town, doing mischief and having fun. I thought Halloween was for kids, he said. He looked like he just met extraterrestrials inside the house and didn’t know what to think of them. They are kids, I said.

        We ended up talking about other things.

  22. GW Smith says:

    This is very interesting. To see the mistrust and resentment the left holds out for you, Tony. I think you have become the face of denialism, formally known as the truth. They are so angry that AGW is sinking they are loosing their ability to reason and even read carefully.

    • RAH says:

      How many times have I used Tony’s material and the only reply has been “That’s from Tony Heller” with no addressing of the data or information? Oh a hundred or so I guess.

      • Squidly says:

        And my reply is always “and what it is that you dispute in this post?” … and … “be specific, otherwise you’re simply ignorant of the issue and have no place to comment

        That usually pisses them off pretty good. They rarely reply and never provide an actual argument. I just laugh at them. Such pathetic creatures.

    • rw says:

      He’s clearly rattled their cage.

  23. Bob G says:

    St. Cloud, MN State University climate records show that the most recent 25 years was a tenth of a degree cooler than the period of 1900 to 1924. None the less, they have a fight climate change game plan. What climate change? Their own records show there isn’t any climate change. Think of the cost of producing and implementing these plans, which probably exist nationwide, at schools and in large corps. This is a huge industry sucking off the Taxpayers teat. Hopefully Trump can ends this madness.

    • gator69 says:

      You are exactly right Andy, look at all that frigging ice! Thanks for pointing this out to everyone here.

      We have absolutely no reason whatsoever to concern ourselves with melting Arctic ice any longer. Let’s use the climate change budget to feed the starving millions, instead of focusing on meaningless ice and a slightly changed and improved climate. I mean, really, who thinks ice is more important than human life? Why spend any time or money on ice that will have zero impact on 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of humanity.

      Not Andy

      • gator69 says:

        Lost the % sign. Guess I could have rounded up, but then there is that fringe element that demands to be counted.

        Not Andy

      • Andy says:

        But you read this blog Gator hoping it will get bigger?



        • gator69 says:

          No, I keep hoping that certain humans will act in a humane manner, rather than chasing leftist agendas and meaningless ice. Genocide is wrong.

          Not Andy

        • Squidly says:

          Hi Andy, count me in as one that hopes it all melts! .. I’m tired of having ice in the Arctic, it just causes arguments. Besides, I want more area to run my jet ski and it would be convenient if shipping could use that area of the sea.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Darn , that is ONE HECK OF A LOT OF SEA ICE !!!

      Wouldn’t you agree., Little Andy

      FAR more than during early all of the Holocene.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Tell us, little child, How much sea ice SHOULD there be?

      We KNOW that the Arctic is coming down from it HIGHEST LEVEL in 10,000 years.

      And we know that, apart from last year’s El Nino based melting, the Antarctic sea ice has been growing.


      I ask again, since you are making such a chicken-little deal of it..

      How much sea ice SHOULD there be ?

      • Bo G. says:

        Are you serious? 7,000 years ago Lake Michigan was 200 feet lower and there were trees growing in the north where there is only tundra now. It was much warmer 7,000 years ago.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Must have been wonderful

          Imagine being able to navigate the Arctic , possible year round.. in a canoe.. now need for massively expensive ice-breakers and ice-breaking oil-tankers.

          And imagine the fishing and travel opportunities.

          None of that wondering if you would even survive !!

          We do know that LIA was a short, spitefully COLD period, only a couple of hundred years ago, coldest period in 10,000 years, actually.
          Is that really what alarmists think should be the norm… seriously ??????

          I know which most people would prefer. !!

      • Squidly says:

        You know you will never get an answer. Ask the same question about what the optimum “temperature” should be .. same thing. They cannot answer. It’s like any other of their pet crisis’ … take the “living” wage issue for example. Ask them how much a “living” wage is. They can’t answer, but they sure as hell want it. I just laugh at the pathetic creatures.

    • sunsettommy says:


      What source is that chart based on?

      Tony, AndyG55, Frank K. had no problem getting sea ice charts directly from the website that generated them.

      Why can’t you?

    • AndyG55 says:

      You KNOW that graph relies totally on the single year drop in the Antarctic caused by the El Nino and weather conditions.

      Why are you so deceitful about these things ?

      Are you trying to impress Jimbo, or something ?

  24. Anon says:

    An open letter to Ruth Mottram:

    In the hard sciences, chemistry and physics, your greatest friend is often your greatest critic. In these fields we take peer review seriously. The last thing we want to do is publish something that is false, incorrect or disprovable. So the next time you want to publish a finding, my advice would be to send it to Steve Goddard, if he can’t find a flaw in it, you are well on your way to knowing that what you are about to publish is solid. Using Twitter as a “substitute for peer review” strikes me as inexpedient, but again, climate science is your field, not mine.

    Meanwhile, I find the material coming out of the climate science field to be dubious to put it mildly:

    Take this NOAA chart here:

    And Steve Goddard’s deconstruction of it here:

    This is a joke, right?

  25. Andy says:

    Just pointing out global sea ice is at a low.

    Does it mean AGW , no.

    Does it mean you should not think about it rather than brushing it under the carpet, no?

    Is this a science blog?


    • Latitude says:

      It’s confusing to me…there’s been no significant warming for about 20 years…so it’s hard to blame that…
      Could be the little bit of warming 20 years ago set something in motion that’s slow to catch up.
      Or even the other way around…
      Biggest problem is people that claim to know why….

      • gator69 says:

        Ice declines during an interglacial. It really is that simple.

        Now if someone wants to hyperventilate and foam over perfectly normal oscillations that occur during an interglacial, it is allowed, there is no law against being ignorant.

        Definitely and Thankfully Not Andy

    • AndyG55 says:

      Antartic sea ice, “climate change” NOPE.,

      “Climate change™” is nothing but model produce assumption driven load of BS.

      Heck, there isn’t any empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming of our convective atmosphere

      So no, “Climate change™” is NOT science.. its FANTASY.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Just pointing out global sea ice is at a low.”

      It most certainly IS NOT.

      Arctic sea ice above what it has been for 90-95% of the last 10,000 years.

      Do you really think that looking at a piddlingly small 40 or so years has any merit.

      You wouldn’t know “science” if it bit you on the a**e…

      …. which it regularly does.

  26. gator69 says:

    Does it mean you should not think about it rather than brushing it under the carpet, no?

    Yes, yes it does. Unless you hate poor brown people.

    Not Andy

  27. GW says:

    Tony, you really need to do a video segment of this whole fiasco and keep it pinned to the top of the blog for a few weeks. Title it : The Ruth Mottram of DMI Challenge Over Arctic Sea Ice.

  28. Mr GrimNasty says:

    Don’t give Ruth or Jim any credit.

    How could intelligent people possibly fail to understood perfectly what point Tony was making and how the diagram had been openly/honestly – with full explanation – enhanced to illustrate his point?

    They created the ‘false data’ angle to discredit and drown out the truth.

    The lack of their ability to defend their stupidity/dishonesty says it all.

    As does the fact that Tony continues to allow them to comment, unlike most warmist sites and MSM, where any dissenting view, or even mild questioning, results in an immediate ban.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      What does Dr. Ruth say she feels about climate change?

      Intellectual curiosity and fear, among other things.

      I say she didn’t show any intellectual curiosity in her exchange with Tony but she flips out when curious outsiders start poking around her compound.

      What do you think?

      Dear Joe,

      You have asked me how I feel about climate change. It’s probably the first time I have ever been asked to say what I feel, rather than what I think and it’s a hard question to answer.

      In my day to day job I run simulations with a regional climate model of Greenland and the Arctic to see how glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice respond to greenhouse gas forcings. The processes and connections I am modelling and following are so familiar it is actually rather easy to bear witness to melting glaciers, rising sea level and vanishing sea ice with near complete detachment. Sometimes however, I am caught by surprise by a new result that at first appears counter-intuitive. Then I feel that beautiful complex mix of elation, surprise, bewilderment and satisfaction as another piece falls into place, that characterizes scientific understanding. It is endlessly fascinating watching how the planet reacts to a changing climate and we are learning so much about the earth system.

      Then I go home and what seem like very arcane models and far-off projections start to seem much more real. 2050 (the year Denmark aims to become carbon neutral) is no longer impossibly distant to imagine but my children will be only a little older than I am now. I have a glimpse of the possible environment they will likely experience and it is sobering. I feel a profound sadness that they will be dealing with a much degraded environment. They will be living with severe problems of our making, an acidifying ocean, reduced biodiversity, extreme weather events, rising sea levels and an Arctic environment that is very different from today. I have no idea how to start to talk to them about this.

      We live in a wealthy country that can (more or less) afford to adapt to climate change, but what of other nations? How will the rest of the world deal with these challenges? These are scary questions that I can’t answer. In spite of all this I do not feel depressed about the future. Humans are an amazingly adaptable and versatile species. We are at our best when we work together on our grand challenges. Let us hope so at any rate.

      So, what do I feel about climate change? Interest, intellectual curiosity, satisfaction, excitement, extreme worry, sadness, fear and perhaps a glimmer of hope…

      Yours sincerely

      Dr Ruth Mottram
      Klimaforsker/Climate Scientist
      Danish Meteorological Institute

      • AndyG55 says:

        “They will be living with severe problems of our making, an acidifying ocean, reduced biodiversity, extreme weather events, rising sea levels and an Arctic environment that is very different from today”

        1 . “acidifying ocean”…. unsubstantiated BS, and also chemically IMPOSSIBLE

        2. “reduced biodiversity”… more unsubstantiated BS

        3. “extreme weather events”… climate has been more benign that usual for the last 40 or more years

        4. “rising sea levels “…. since whenever… at less than 2mm/year… WOW !

        5. “and an Arctic environment that is very different from today”… hopefully, FAR LESS sea ice.

        Ruth, you appear to be a brain-washed AGW psychophant.

        WAKE UP, and smell the TRUTH !!!

    • Jim Hunt says:

      I’ve told Tony off about his cherry picking numerous times before Mr. Grim.

      For some strange reason he keeps on ignoring me! He ignores Ruth too. At the risk of repeating her:

      So you cherry-pick a year, right after the then lowest sea ice extent on record, +filter out all new ice that has subsequently formed..

      What’s so hard for the blog of fools to understand about that?

      • sunsettommy says:

        Gosh you didn’t get it either Jimmy.

        Tony was talking about ONE METER PLUS ice,which is why he masked out the thin (LESS than 1 meter ice) ice. Then his animation can show the difference between 2008,2017 of 1+ Meter ice better.

        That is why many here laugh at you and Ruth.

  29. Jim Hunt says:

    I’ve only just discovered why my ears have been burning.

    My name in lights once again. Thanks Tony!

  30. Jim says:

    What’s most important is what was not said. Ruth did not say that what Tony said was wrong, only that the graphic was modified by Tony. The claim that 1+ meter ice increased over that time period was never challenged. She should be pressed to publicly state whether or not the claim is right or wrong…and if she agrees with her own data, then why is she upset?

Leave a Reply

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