May Day Arctic Fraud Update

This summer is shaping up to be a complete disaster for the climate mafia, with Arctic sea ice extent normal and the highest in five years

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Sea ice volume is also normal, and highest in four years.

Both the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage are block with 10+ foot thick ice, and thick ice is pushing into both the Beaufort and East Siberian Seas.

FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180430.png (1337×1113)

It has been 10 years since National Geographic, and top American, Norwegian and Canadian researches predicted the North Pole would be ice-free that summer.

North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer

North Pole could be ice free in 2008 | New Scientist

Expert: Arctic polar cap may disappear this summer_English_Xinhua

Based on the advice of our top experts, Lewis Pugh tried to kayak to the North Pole.

BBC NEWS | UK | Swimmer aims to kayak to N Pole

He made it about 20 miles towards the pole, then paddled in circles, and the fake news press declared victory.

Explorer kayaks to 1,000 km from N.Pole

Sea ice extent was above normal near Spitzbergen. Somehow the press forgot to report on that fact.

N_200809_extn_v2.1.png (420×500)

But have no fear, the Democrats’ top climate prophet “echoing work by other scientists” guarantees the Arctic will be ice free this summer.

The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to May Day Arctic Fraud Update

  1. Stewart Pid says:

    The alarmists need Reggie and his blow torch but instead are stuck with Griff and his bullshit. The ice is safe ;-)

  2. Griff says:

    “with Arctic sea ice extent normal and the highest in five years”

    It absolutely is not ‘normal’ or the highest in 5 years.

    ‘Normal’ would be up to the red lines here:

    and it is the second lowest in the last 40 years here:

    “Sea ice volume is also normal, and highest in four years”

    the last 4 years have seen the lowest winter sea ice volumes on record…

    • tonyheller says:

      Griff having difficulty reading graphs again.

      • Griff says:

        and your comment on the NSIDC graph, which clearly shows second lowest extent in 40 years?

        Or these extent graphs?

        The Bering Sea is one month ahead on the usual melting season… just weather, I suppose?

        The extent and volume over the winter was amongst the lowest on record again, as it has been for what – 4 years?

        • Gator says:

          Ms Griff, 40 years is insignificant. You genocidal alarmists always cherrypick short time scales to justify your slaughter. Creationists have a better grasp of Earth history than you sick clowns.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Griff said, “….just weather, I suppose?”

          Ayup. Even your graphs show there is no crash of Arctic sea ice, but show nothing more than fluctuations well within boundaries of what might be expected with the volatile Arctic ice pack – *and there MORE ICE than what your leaders predicted by now* (which is the MAIN POINT that you conveniently keep sidestepping and dancing around).

          But, I’m sure you’ll keep picking fly shit out of the pepper – whatever it takes to keep you from becoming disillusioned. ;-P

        • R. Shearer says:

          Time and again, Mr. Heller has pointed out that the satellite record being discussed began prior to 1979. Seemingly dishonest climate scientists choose to start the “record” in 1979 because that is the recent “high” and in fact “unusually high.” Keep in mind that the Arctic today has more ice than during the majority of this interglacial.

          To my point, the maximum extent of 2018 was higher than 14.4 million sq km. That in 1974 was 14.4 million sq km according to Parkinson and Cavalieri, J. Geo. Res., Vol 94, No. C10, page 14,502, 1989.

          • Andy DC says:

            No scientist remotely worthy of the name would pick the record coldest year (1979) to start their chart, unless they had a predetermined vested interest in the outcome.

            If someone similarly started their July temperature record in 1936 for Midwestern US cities, a very good case could be made for dangerous global cooling.

        • GW Smith says:

          Throughout history human measurements have approached truth as well as concealed bias, and nothing on the horizon is prepared to change that – check your data again.

        • David Reich says:

          You alarmists always say periods such as 40 years is too short and we have to look longer. So, okay let’s do that. Explain why research shows that for the entire Halocene period (10,000 to 1,200 years ago), arctic sea ice that covered at least 50% of the regions varied between 5.5 and 9 months a year and that the 1954-2001 period shows between 9.4 and 11.8 months:

          Further, explain how a 1985 DOE report and other research shows arctic ice averaging the same level as today back in the 1940’s and early 1950’s?

          Where can you point to show the “change” from 1979 to today is outside of natural variation and caused by CO2?

    • R. Shearer says:

      Same, or slightly higher, than it was in 1974.

    • Gator says:

      “Normal”, if there were such a thing in weather or climate, would be an ice fre Arctic.

      Babies think that an hour is geologic eon.

  3. RH says:

    Arctic sea ice volume is also similar to 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013. Essentially unchanged for a decade. How could this be possible on an Earth that is marching toward global warming destruction at an increasingly quick pace?

    • arn says:

      The warmer weather is everywhere-
      except the arctics and the places we live :)
      that’s how global warming works.

      Or arctic sea ice does just what ice does during a hiatus,
      being pretty constant and the fluctuations are result of wind pushing ice around and where the warmer and colder weather is located for how long.

  4. Crashex says:

    Another interesting feature of this year’s ice development that hasn’t been talked about is the retention of the MYI. The weather patterns have NOT pushed the older ice out the Fram Strait this year, that is why the Greenland region is a abit lower than average. Compare the red areas of old ice on the Russian’s maps over the last few years. A distinct step up in the amount of MYI this year. Since it is most resistant to summer melt, the stage is set of a lower drop in area trips year.

    Loss of MYI was a major rallying cry back in the day as it dropped, not a peep from the alarmists as that trend reversed.

  5. Ron Clutz says:

    The end of April report from MASIE shows persisting Arctic ice, with Bering Sea quite low for this date, but other seas in surplus, especially Okhotsk and Barents. The latter is stubbornly holding onto 700k km2 of ice, unusual for this date.

    • Spark says:

      As Tony has mentioned, the low ice extent in the Bering Sea is from prevalent south winds in the north Pacific, but is it also reflective of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), or just a strong Jet stream pattern? Just wondering.

      • Griff says:

        The Bering Sea is a month ahead on ice loss compared to the average. Just weather is it?

        consider that without a decline in the ice the winds would not have been able to produce that result.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Just weather is it?”

          Poor cis-griff seems to be IGNORANT of the events leading to the slightly lesser sea ice in the Bering trait region

          Follow the path of the El Nino surface water, bozo. !!

        • sunsettommy says:

          The area melts out every early summer anyway, not a factor.

          You keep ignoring this documented fact that todays sea ice extent is above average for the Holocene, danger published science papers Griff will ignore are in the link:

          From No Tricks Zone

          posted by Kenneth Richard

          Arctic Temps 2°-6°C Warmer Than Today With 4.5 Fewer Months Of Sea Ice Coverage 2,000 Years Ago

          Arctic Sea Ice Extent Higher During 1954-2001
          Than Almost Any Period In The Last 9,000 Years


          A warmist loon tries to dispute, gets a big smackdown over and over from Kenneth Richard.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Yeah, nothing to do with ocean currents. Can’t be – it’s got to be man-made – the only explanation. SMH

          I cannot believe you actually believe the alarmunist spin you post each day. You simply can’t. Nobody is that stupid. You must be working for an entity that benefits from the AGW scam. Who is employing you to post your non sequitur alarmunism each day? The pay must be really good.

    • Griff says:

      MASIE, as correspondents here have been repeatedly informed, is useless for year on year comparisons.

  6. Gerald Machnee says:

    Did I miss Griff’s comment on the canoeist who successfully got to 1000 km from the north pole. Looks like he saw the pole and said “close enough”.

    • Griff says:

      One year soon a canoeist will make it to the Pole… there will be open water from some continental coat all the way to the Pole. It only needs an ‘ideal’ melting season, given the base state of the ice.

      and there will be no comparison possible between that event and a sub surfacing through a thin spot in the ice identified by sonar… though thousands of lines will be wasted on such in these columns.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “One year soon a canoeist will make it to the Pole…”

        Make it up as you go along. FANTASY cis,-griff

        You are really suggesting its going to drop back near the extent of the MWP or RWP any time soon are you.

        Your hallucnogenic ignorance is manifest yet again.

      • Gator says:

        And… Ms Griff still hates the poor, and works tirelessly to kill them.

        • Griff says:

          did you’all read that interesting link I posted for you? about the poor brown people suffering more from climate change?

          • Gator says:

            Ms Griff, they suffer because alarmists will not allow them to have cheap energy, and because alarmists burn their food and spend our treasure on leftist pipe dreams.

            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.



            No poor brown people are suffering from climate change.

            God you are evil and stupid.

      • Gerald Machnee says:

        **One year soon **
        Definition of soon – 1000 years??

      • neal s says:

        My chances of becoming a multi-millionaire during my lifetime are likely far greater than the chances of any canoeist or kayaker making it to the north pole paddling from outside the arctic circle without somehow portaging across ice.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Arctic ice-free next summer … and free beer tomorrow.

  8. gregole says:

    Ice free Arctic. It was forecast. Time and again. Where is it? It’s 2018. This entire fraud is getting stale. Arctic better get ice-free real soon. This summer. I want to see an ice-free Arctic. What is this, some kind of scam or con? I don’t care about the Bearing Straight. I don’t care about the North Pole. I don’t care about so-called trends. I need to see a totally ice-free Arctic. I am sick and tired of the lies, exaggerations, word games, fake experts trying to sound important, sophistry, weasel words, nit-picking, back and forth nonsense. I need to see an ice-free Arctic. Now. This year.

  9. Disillusioned says:

    Arctic nations are calling for building newer, larger, more powerful icebreakers… for that upcoming ice-free Arctic, of course.

    Because that thin, 1st-year winter ice is so thick and troublesome. And up is down, left is right, and lies are truth.

    • Griff says:

      er, not exactly… because the ice is thinner for longer, the Russians are building icebreakers as it allows them to route ships further north thru thinner ice and to sail them for longer into the winter. Receding arctic sea ice = more Russian icebreakers.

      and China isn’t far behind on this…

      • Gator says:

        So a melting Arctic is good news, eh? Glad you finally agree with the sane crowd for once.

        Now if we could just teach you to not hate poor brown people…

      • Disillusioned says:

        Sure, they are building the largest, most powerful icebreakers ever – capable of cutting through 20 ft. thick ice – because the ice is getting “thinner for longer.”

        Careful. You might get dizzy from all that spinning.

Leave a Reply

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