Tom Karl And Kevin Trenberth Say The New York Times Is Lying About Sea Ice

The New York Times claims that satellites were first used to study the Arctic in the late 1970s.

We Charted Arctic Sea Ice for Nearly Every Day Since 1979. You’ll See a Trend. – The New York Times

In 1990, Tom Karl and Kevin Trenberth said we have “routinely” collected satellite data back to the early 1970’s, when sea ice extent was “significantly less”

1990 IPCC Report

h/t Leigh Yaxley

Details here from the National Ice Center

U.S. NIC

h/t northernont

NOAA and the New York Times are now trying to hide the pre-1970 low sea ice extent, because it wrecks their global warming story.

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

This is a smoking gun of fraud. The people behind this need to called out and shut down.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Tom Karl And Kevin Trenberth Say The New York Times Is Lying About Sea Ice

  1. GW Smith says:

    Great one, Tony! Nailed them!

  2. northernont says:

    They even documented the satellite sensor type, time and coverage here….
    http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/archive/historical/Sea_Ice_Documents/Appendix_A.html

  3. Anon says:

    This seems to be Standard Operating Procedure for NOAA & NASA. In this video a former Obama official talks about Gavin Schmidt doing the exact same thing with the Hurricane data:

    http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-how-government-twists-climate-statistics/80027CBC-2C36-4930-AB0B-9C3344B6E199.html?mod=trending_now_video_3

  4. jackson says:

    Thank you. This stuff is wonderful. Thank you.

  5. northernont says:

    Tony, you have to update your link to the joint ice data center in your post to http.

  6. Crashex says:

    Looks like they moved the goalposts too.

    “Sea Ice is defined to be present when its concentration exceeds 10%”

    They changed this benchmark to 15% or 30% for the more modern assessments. Better for reporting lower values.

    • CheshireRed says:

      Nice spot, Crashex. Is there ANY part of AGW that isn’t riddled with bad data or outright fraud?
      Satellite data.
      Ocean heat content data.
      Sea level rise data.
      Hurricane data.
      US surface data.
      Global surface data.
      CO2 sensitivity data.
      Historical data.
      The Hockey Stick!
      ALL corrupted, every last one of them. AGW theory isn’t just a joke any more, it’s the glue holding together a global criminal network. Where’s Trump on this? He should be launching the Mother of all Inquiries.

      • Rah says:

        Ha! Over at Roy Spencer’s blog some of us have been going around and around with David Appel, dr No, and
        Bindidnon about the fraud at the Aussie BOM. They won’t even look at links, just trash Jo Nova.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Unfortunately , Dr No-nothing had raised his pimply leftist head at JoNova’s blog.

          • Rah says:

            Funny since he just made fun of her at Roy’s blog. You and I both commented on his Tasmanian grapes claim.

          • AndyG55 says:

            ALL of Tasmania is less far from the equator than Bordeaux.

            France has no difficult growing grapes. ;-)

            Tassie aligns more with Spain as far as latitude goes.

            Only cool climate grapes grow in Tasmania.!

          • RAH says:

            Westfield, NY located in the wine belt of western NY along the SE shore of Lake Erie.
            Latitude:
            Latitude:
            42.32228°

            Latitude of the center of Tasmania
            -42.02942°

            I drive by the miles of vineyards running along the SE shore of Lake Erie all the time. Nothing unusual at all about grapes being grown At either place.

  7. Steve Case says:

    I could give a rip about the sea ice extent because the wind blows the ice around, and it really doesn’t look like it has much to do with Global Warming/Climate Change. However, the 1971 IPCC graph generated from satellite data – they say so right in their report – and the other stuff Tony has dug up is clearly a festering boil on the posterior of the Climate Change faithful, and it amuses me no end.

  8. R. Shearer says:

    I bet the SOBs don’t stand for the National Anthem.

  9. Keith says:

    The list of contributors to that paper includes several names of interest.

    First off, K. Y.A. Vinnikov is the likely author of estimates of Arctic sea ice from 1920 – 1975 which Tony has brought to our attention as Vinnikov et al 1980. This is excellent evidence that Arctic ice varied a great deal in the past, contrary to warmist assumptions, and implications. https://realclimatescience.com/government-arctic-sea-ice-fraud/

    P D Jones may well be Philip David (Phil) Jones retired director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, source of “Climategate” emails. He infamously revealed he could not calculate using excel, despite having written many hockey stick articles with Michael Mann and “the team”. He also authored other papers with Karl.

    P. Wadhams is Peter Wadhams of infamy regarding wrong predictions about disappearing Arctic ice, and extrapolating downward trends to zero. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/21/farewell-to-ice-peter-wadhams-review-climate-change

    S. Levitus is likely the author of well-cited papers on ocean warming (Levitus et al 2000) and ocean heat content (Levitus et al 2012, a, b).

    Others I’m not so sure about:

    R. Bradley. Is this Raymond S. Bradley, co-author of the 1998 hockey stick paper with Michael Mann? R S Bradley’s publications go as far back as 1990 and include co-authorships with Vinnikov. http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html

    H. Diaz is also listed as a co-author on other Karl / Jones / Bradley papers.

    On the other hand:

    G. Kukla is George Kukla, who warned about possible future cold, and today would be considered a skeptic / contrarian / denier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kukla

    The implication is that, apart from Vinnikov, Kukla and (to some extent) Levitus, the others have all published alarmist material, while being fully aware that Arctic ice was low in the early 1970’s, and therefore that natural variability and cycles are shown by the data.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.