Climate Scientists Stuck In The Past

Last year, Greenland had their fifth largest surface ice mass gain on record, gaining nearly 600 billion tons of ice.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

This year, Greenland is again gaining ice faster than the 1981-2010 mean. Yet the Danish Meteorological Institute continues to feature seven year old data from 2011-2012 in bright red.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

NSIDC does the same thing with their MASIE data, because 2012 was the last year when there was any hope for the global warming scam. Since then, Greenland’s glaciers have been expanding.

I attended a debate in 2014 between Kevin Trenberth and Judith Curry, where Trenberth (literally) blamed the US warmth of 2012 on evil Republicans. 2012 was the last year when there was any hope for the global warming scam, so climate alarmists cling to it.

As CO2 increases, the frequency of hot days declines, Hot weather peaked at 310 PPM CO2.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Climate Scientists Stuck In The Past

  1. Griff says:

    Greenland is not ‘icing faster’.

    Greenland did however see exceptional snowfall/precipitation in 2017.

    “Overall, initial figures suggest that Greenland may have gained a small amount of ice over the 2016-17 year. If confirmed, this would mark a one-year blip in the long-term trend of year-on-year declines over recent decades.

    The unusual year is mainly down to heavy snow and rain in winter and a relatively short and intermittent summer melt season. And the source of that bumper winter snowfall was the remnants of a hurricane that wreaked widespread damage 4,500km away in Bermuda.”

    As posters here are so fond of saying ‘this is just weather -you need to distinguish weather from climate’

    • Gator says:

      You need to stop hating poor brown people.

      These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

      The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

      And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

      Alarmism is murder.

    • tonyheller says:

      The current chart shows exactly what I said :
      “This year, Greenland is again gaining ice faster than the 1981-2010 mean”

      • Griff says:

        It seems pretty close to the mean to me… and as you well know, the largest part of the mass balance equation is the melt later in the year….

        • AndyG55 says:

          Data of the mass of the melt, griff?

          Or just empty mindless yapping.

          Greenland is STILL way above what its been for most of the last 8000+ years, maybe fractionally down from the LIA, which was the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

          Or are you going to continue to DENY CLIMATE CHANGE, griff?

          Melting from geothermal activity and cyclic behaviour .

          ABSOLUTELY ZERO PROOF that humans have anything to do with any melt.

          Remain EMPTY and IGNORANT , griff,

          Its who you are.

        • Gator says:

          The meaningless mean, is that what you mean?

          And why are you mean to poor brown people Ms Griff?

    • Stewart Pid says:

      You just gotta love all the snow, ice and wintery weather driving the grifftards of the world batshit crazy. I have a mental picture of the grifftard shivering in the dark, saying over and over to himself “I’m frying, I’m really frying”.
      GLOBALONEY WARMING is a cruel bitch Griffy.

      • Griff says:

        climate change is certainly cruel…

        It can bring flood and bitter winter – it isn’t just all the temps evenly going up a few degrees.

        • AndyG55 says:

          On the conrtrary , griff,

          Climate change has lifted the world out of the COLDEST, MOST DESPERATE period in the last 10,000 years.

          Climate is FAR MORE BENIGN than it has been for a LONG time, according to basically every statistic.

          Why are you such a manic CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER, griff?

          Perpetual ignorance is the only clue you offer.

        • Gator says:

          No Ms Griff, climate change alarmism is cruel. It is also murder.

    • AndyG55 says:

      griff, seems you are IGNORANT that Greenland ice araea has only RECOVERED very slightly from the most EXTREME extent in 8000+ years

      IGNORANCE and CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL are all that allows your manic bed-wetting panic to continue.

    • Anon says:


      Decades? Long-term trend?

      /If confirmed, this would mark a one-year blip in the long-term trend of year-on-year declines over recent decades./

      “From 1990 to 2000 Greenland was in balance: input-output was about equal. Input is the snow, and output is melt and ice that moves into the ocean.”

      So you have a possible 17 year trend, not decades and not long-term, well within the bounds of a multi-decade oscillation and now you have a “blip”.
      If it is confirmed I hope you see it as your solemn duty to report it to the world.

      Or will you take the route of the Prime Minister of Tuvalu and declare that “climate change is a weapon of mass destruction” : “We are caught in the middle, and certainly in Tuvalu, we are very, very worried – we are already suffering,” he said.

      Griff, I just wonder what he is suffering is all? As his island has been growing in recent decades:

      ‘Sinking’ Pacific nation is getting bigger: study

      Can you enlighten us about what he is suffering? As Climate Change is growing his island nation – maybe he meant “weapon of mass CONSTRUCTION”?

      Any how, please get the news out about the “blip” you are so close to acknowledging “if confirmed”.

      Maybe next year Climate Change will prove to be freezing and not melting Greenland as it is growing the islands in the Pacific? Would not that be wonderful!

  2. Margaret Smith says:

    Climate trends are measured over, at least, centuries. All else is weather. It must be getting so desperately difficult to try to defend a dead CO2 scam. Nature just will not co-operate.
    However, all you and all the other gravy-train riders have to do is produce the reproducible definitive scientific proof and we will all be believers. It’s so simple. Isn’t it? So here and now is a good time to do this and what’s more, you would be the first ever to do so.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Well said.

    • Griff says:

      I believe a 30 year period is usually regarded as sufficient to show a climate trend…

      We’ve got 40 yars of satellite data on the arctic and much more going back into the 19th century.

      It is clear, for example, arctic sea ice minimums are now lower than those of the 1940s (source: Judith curry)

      • AndyG55 says:

        Yep , we have reconstructions going back 10,000 years.

        ALL of them show that the Arctic and Greenland are very much in the TOP 10% of their extent, mass, volume, area.. whatever in the last 10,000 years

        Why do you continually ignore this FACT.

        Ignorance is your only crutch for your irrational belief in AGW, I guess.

      • Gator says:

        How are the continental glaciers that covered the Midwest doing? About as well as the millions starved to death by climate change alarmism.

      • Mark Fife says:

        Generally accepted by the hacks who make a living off of the tax payers? Generally accepted by the people who think disagreeing with the “consensus” is the same as tossing millions of Jews and others into a death chamber? Generally accepted by the climate magnates who are amassing Al Gore level fortunes off this bull all over the world? Generally accepted by every third world dictator just dying to get their hands on a few billion dollars out of the pockets of the American worker? Who generally accepted that large chunk of whale feces on the basis of actual statistics ground in real world, concrete data? Show me the analysis along with the data and the method. Otherwise flip off.

        We have numerous long term temperature records which are pristine and rigorously maintained. Any one of them will show short term oscillations which repeat. Cycles which run over 100 years. How many iterations of a cycle does it take to establish a pattern? Surely more than one.

        Only an idiot stands at the edge of a valley between mountains and assumes what they see immediately before them defines the rest of the world.

        • MrZ says:


          We had an argument about anomalies here the other day.
          I got intrigued about your station swap analyses so I extended it to also include average slope for the active stations. The slope is first calculated separately for every station for all years it is active using a line least square fit equation.
          I then do an average based on the stations that are active every year. All data is read from ghcnm.v3…..tavg.qca.dat (so NOAAs adjusted tavg data)

          If they used the same stations every year the average slope should be flat. This because average slope can only change as stations are added or deleted. It shall be noted that the last NEW station was added to the GHCNM v3 set 1984. Since then it is either station selection or lost stations that causes the average slope to change.

          This needs more analyses but the curve looks very suspicious to me.

        • MrZ says:

          And here is a GHCNM station swap graph. As you can see from the graph many changes are stations pausing and resuming. Why would you want to turn so many station off for a few years and then bring them back online later?
          Next step is to calculate individual slopes for the windows when a station is active.

          It looks as if a large portion of the warming trend could be caused by station selection, -as you stated.

          • Mark Fife says:

            That is a pretty neat analysis. I am finding it hard to find fault with that.

            I also like the second graph. I did something similar but vastly inferior. I am not sharing mine!

            I have a suggestion for your first approach. This is something I did but I used anomalies. Take a sampling of several years of your slope data to get an average and a standard deviation. Create a histogram and look at the distribution. You are obviously adept at doing analytics so I think you get the idea.

            If the station selection is biased you should find the percentages based upon degree of slope change. In other words, low slop stations drop off, high slope stations stay or are added.

            That would be mighty interesting I think.

          • MrZ says:

            Thanks Mark

            Throw me a mail if you want to share some more ideas.

  3. scott allen says:

    Griff I wrote the the DMI and asked why they had not changed the average gain or loss (which they average over 10 years, since last year DMI showed a gain of over 200 gt which would put the 10 year running average around 160 gt loss, not the 200 gt.) and this is the response.

    “Dear Scott,

    Thank you for your interest in our site. Every year when the hydrological year ends on Aug 31, we keep the just-ended season’s graph on the plot to allow our readers to reference this throughout the following winter. Every April 1, in preparation for the coming melt season, we remove the previous season’s graph to not clutter the graphics. This is not new, we do it every year, as you can see on our site, where you can use the date-picker field to go back and see previous years and dates. On this site, we update the accumulated graphs weekly, and you can see that the first weekly update after an Apr 1 has had the previous season removed.

    The 2011-12 graph has not replaced the 2016-17 graph – it has been there all along. This one is to show, for reference, how bad that record-breaking season was.

    All the best,
    Peter Langen”

    Alarmist will only show “how bad that record-breaking season was” never how good a record breaking season was.

    • tonyheller says:

      Peter will be sitting in the retirement home 30 years from now mumbling “we really thought we had ’em in 2012”

  4. Brad says:

    I love to see a ‘day after tommorow’ scenario if the gulf stream stops.

    • arn says:

      Hollywood is a great source for science and education :)

      Imagine such an enourmous powerfull thing as e the gulf stream-
      and you really expect that it’ll be stopped by melting ice?
      Neither Rocks nor earth could stop water from flowing
      and for sure not a liquid mass.It will simply be pushed away and mixed with the arctic water.

      The gulf stream may change its direction due to some unknown
      reasons((of course AGW would be blamed then and all will pretend that they knew it)) but it won’t be stopped due to melting
      as those years with the most ice melting in the arctic tend to be the warmer ones.Warmer years cause less ice,more heated oceans=more powerfull gulf stream.
      If ice melting in the arctic would slow down the gulf stream Europe would get much colder weather((as cold as the eastern US regions at the same longitude))-that#s not happening.

      • Brad says:

        We are getting colder weather though but not from global warming or a slowing gulf stream. No no its because of the incoming GSM.

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      As RAH says, climate models and ‘Day After Tomorrow’ scenarios are what the witch doctor “climate scientists” wish the climate was doing. They’re just climate porn.

  5. Joe says:

    “2012 was the last year when there was any hope for the global warming scam”
    Lol, alarmists have try to do this with other proxies as well.
    There was a website showing the ‘disappearance of the Barnes Ice Cap’, from what I recall they stopped updating the satellite images after 2012 or so.
    There was another showing the amount of days the Rideau Canal in Ottawa was open for skating was declining over time (they were counting since 1970’s from what I remember). It was going well for alarmists for a while, but after about 2010 they stopped updating and eventually the website was shut down.
    Long and cold winters made a comeback.

      • AndyG55 says:

        So what.

        It probably only formed during the LIA anyway.

        If you take an ice cube out of the freezer (LIA) and put it in the refrigerator section (Current world temps) what happens to it??

      • Gator says:

        Millions of innocent humans are on their way out, thanks to climate change alarmism.

      • Joe says:

        Griff – Ah, ok that is a more recent study.

        First of all, these are just predictions.
        Second, there have been previous interglacial periods warmer than now. That ice cap must have been smaller during those times compared to now.

        • Joe says:

          Even if it was not smaller, the fact that “the ice cap has been as small as it is now only three times at most.” means it is not that unusual, on a long-term scale. It might also mean we’re at the end of the inter-glacial, and about begin another cold age – since this is the smallest its been in previous interglacials. The next 10 – 20 years should answer some big climate questions.

Leave a Reply

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