Latest Arctic Fraud From NOAA

NOAA “scientists” are up to their usual tricks of making up fake data, claiming a hockey stick of Arctic ice back to the year 500 – with ice peaking in the early part of the last century.

We’re witnessing the fastest decline in Arctic sea ice in at least 1,500 years – Vox

The NOAA graph is garbage. Vikings sailed open seas in the Arctic around the year 1100.

Papers Past | VARIATIONS IN CLIMATE. (Press, 1887-11-08)

The North Pole was rapidly melting in 1923, and many glaciers had vanished.

07 Apr 1923 – NORTH POLE MELTING. – Trove

By 1958, there had been a 50% loss of Arctic sea ice volume.

The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times

In 1985 the DOE showed a 15% decline in Arctic sea ice area from 1925 to 1955, which is missing in the NOAA graph.

Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect

There has been a large increase in Arctic ice thickness and volume over the past decade.

2008   2018

Climate scientists simply make facts up, and the useful idiots in the press happily eat them up without doing any research or fact checking.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Latest Arctic Fraud From NOAA

  1. Edmonton Al says:

    I say that Emily Osborne should be made to come forward and present her data to n investigative committee [blue-red??] , or, debate the findings.

    • Rud Istvan says:

      It isn’t her data. Vox is wrong. And, the ‘data’ itself is a joke—there is no high resolution Arctic paleo sea ice data. None. She said so herself in her figure 1. See long comment below just posted for the truth about this deception.

  2. MGJ says:

    The most interesting thing is not her graph – which looks to be complete baloney – but what trick she used to justify it. Assuming it is not complete and utter fraud (there’s usually a tiny grain of truth somewhere, prior to all the data fiddling) does anybody know what her methodology was to generate such a plot?

    In other words, what exactly is it claiming to be a measurement of and how was the data acquired?

  3. arn says:

    Hockeystick science strikes again.
    (either hockeystick or tons of red color)

    If she would be facing 10 years prison for wrong predictions the hockeystick
    would dissappear faster than light.

  4. R2Dtoo says:

    At some point in this process of deceit someone has to call out a member of the “team”. Things like this have to be challenged publicly. It would take only one conviction to stop the malfeasance. I can’t believe that someone in the US with $$$, or someone in Trump’s cabinet doesn’t have the will to file legal proceedings. ExxonMobile finally grew a pair – more please.

  5. GW Smith says:

    To the Left facts are incidental. The claim is all that matters.

  6. Rud Istvan says:

    Was curious, as VOX is unreliable. So spent time sleuthing this. Nothing about this excerpt is correct. All bogus. Osbourne did not collect the data for the figure. She wrote an article for Arctic.noaa.gov in which it appears as part of Figure 3 taken from Speilhagen et. al. 2011. She is a NOAA talking head. Speilhagen labels this (the lowest part of his chart turned into NOAA fig 3 as coming from Kinnard et. al 2011. That turns out to be a paper in Nature 479: 509-512. Paywalled, but the abstract gives the bogus game away. Kinnard’s paleo proxy sea ice reconstruction was made from circumpolar TERRESTRIAL temperature proxies (tree rings, lake sediments), which were then used to model (guesstimate) what the sea ice might have been based on temperature. Complete garbage, because sat measured sea ice declined during the sat and ground measured temperature pause post 2000. The abstract even says, “extreme uncertainties remain”. Of course, since sea ice declined post 2000 despite the temperature pause. Onto this non sea ice based guess was appended the satellite measurements (dotted portion of graph.
    Notice also the LACK of sea ice impact from the MWP and LIA. The reconstruction result defies common sense in addition to coming from a bastardized methodology.

  7. Ulric Lyons says:

    The 1120’s was during a short but deep solar minimum, that’s why the Arctic was warm. During the Dalton Minimum ships also noted a dramatic loss of sea ice. The mid latitudes in the 1120’s saw savagely cold conditions, Michael the Syrian chronicles several times that the Euphrates froze. Conditions in Europe were very severe, pages 59-62:
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/weather1.pdf

  8. Dr Pete Sudbury says:

    Your last point seems to be contradicted by the infographic. If you look at the curves in the inset box, they are lower (i.e. less ice) when it flicks to 2018, compared to 2008.
    So ice is decreasing, surely?

    • tonyheller says:

      Your observation is incorrect. Why are you posting gibberish on my blog?

    • gator69, says:

      We have a true believer in our midst…

      Dr Pete Sudbury

      Political lobbyist at Greenpeace; Healthcare exec and health IT translator

      Political lobbyist – Company Name: Greenpeace
      Dates Employed: Dec 2017 – Present.. Employment Duration3 mos

      I believe climate change is one of the most urgent threats to humanity and the creatures with which we share this planet. As a consequence, I have a longstanding interest in low carbon living.
      I think this is a fascinating and critical time to be involved in this area:
      • There is gathering evidence that we are at a crucial tipping point where economics, rather than solely politics or environmental concerns, is beginning to drive the adoption of sustainable and low carbon technologies.
      • I believe that countries and economies that adopt the right priorities and policy frameworks at this juncture stand to benefit disproportionately from the creation of high wage, high skill jobs and marketable exports (technological, skills-based and intellectual) and lower energy costs that flow from establishing and growing successful low carbon industries and markets.
      • Low carbon energy is a fundamental plank of the UK industrial strategy.
      Finally, my generation bears a great deal of responsibility for the current fragile state of the climate and I believe those of us who are able have a moral duty to do what we can to rectify the problems we have caused.
      My experience in mental healthcare leads me to the view that almost everyone behaves rationally within their own frame of reference and the key to successful influencing is to work from inside that frame to find areas of agreement and mutual understanding.

      Wow, all that from failed models and failed predictions based upon a failed hypothesis. Keep the faith Doc!

    • EllBee says:

      Dr Pete Sudbury – It would appear as though you have waded into a swamp of home schooled evangelical anti-science Republican climate science experts. (Sorry, for Tony Heller I’ll have to retract the rligious connotation “evangelical”) The problem with all of them is that to them climate change is stepping outside, wetting their finger to see which way the wind is blowing and as it is drying, a light comes on and, “Eureka! The climate is changing!”

      For me, Fig. 3 in this December 2017 report from NOAA puts all the global climate change science in one unequivocal easy to read graph that everybody can understand.

      http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2017/ArtMID/7798/ArticleID/690/Paleoceanographic-Perspectives-on-Arctic-Ocean-Change

      • tonyheller says:

        Moron alert ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑

      • Gator says:

        Ms EllBee, for me climate change is a natural occurrence as it has been for billions of years. And that was what I learned not at my mother’s kitchen table as a home scholar, but as a climatology student at a major university.

        Since you have it all figured out, please share your vast “knowledge”.

        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.

  9. RAH says:

    Dr.?
    The graph has faint grid lines. Watch the end of the short line move between years and tell us which one is higher up the y axis of the graph.

Leave a Reply

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