Making The 1970s Fit The Narrative

Apparently team climate fraud got tired of being accused of hiding the inconvenient pre-1979 Arctic sea ice data, which showed a sharp increase in sea ice during the 1970s.

1990 IPCC Report

So they simply replaced it with fake data which shows a decrease during the 1970s.

ice_minmax_n.png (1613×1148)

No surprise there. Making up fake data is standard operating procedure for climate alarmists.

h/t Climate Detective

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Making The 1970s Fit The Narrative

  1. R Shearer says:

    Their source is supposedly NSIDC, but the link from there is broken. It sure looks faked before 1979.

  2. Steve Keohane says:

    In the anomaly chart, the range is +/- 1 X 10^6Km^2. In the extent chart the range is +/- 5 X 10^6Km^2 up to 1990, more for the whole chart. What’s up with that?

    • Steven Fraser says:

      There are several things about the data which are not represented by the charts, but which are presented in accompanying text. To fully compare the charts, the concentration and grids need to be known.

      That said, here are some of the things to check or compare:

      1) The Ice extent values in the IPCC 1990 chart are based on 10%+ concentration, gridded in 1 degree longitude, 2.5 degree latitude.
      2) Without a textual description (perhaps available later) its not possible to know the grid characteristics, or the % for the extent value chart. However, IMO it is likely that the 15% threshold common for satellite observations since 1979 are used.
      3) The Polar View chart is in sq km extent, absolute value. Comparing with an anomaly chart requires a conversion which knows the monthly averages used for the anomalies in the earlier chart.

      The availability of additional information may help with the comparison.

      • Steven Fraser says:

        4) The absolute extent chart appears to be daily values, not the monthly averages used in the earlier chart.

  3. Advocatus Diaboli says:

    Is there a pre-tampering extent chart available for 197x-1979, so that site visitors can do a direct visual comparison?

    • R Shearer says:


      • Advocatus Diaboli says:

        Thank you R Shearer, this is the link that I eventually landed on via the info you gave:

        Unfortunately, the article (with charts/graphs, presumably) is behind a $7-$42 paywall, depending on the amount of access desired.

        Anyone know of another source for the graph that Tony (or a commenter) could post?

      • DD More says:

        Figure 7.20: (a) Northern Hemisphere, and (b) Southern
        Hemisphere sea-ice extent anomalies. Data from NOAA (USA).

        Did you know it came with a discussion?

        7.8.2 Sea-ice Extent and Thickness
        Changes and fluctuations in Arctic seaice extent have been analysed by Mysak and Manak (1989); they find no long term trends in sea-ice extent between 1953 and 1984 in a number of Arctic ocean regions but substantial decadal time scale variability was evident in the Atlantic sector. These variations were found to be consistent with the development, movement and decay of the “Great Salinity Anomaly” noted in Section 7.7. Sea-ice conditions are now reported regularly in marine synoptic observations, as well as by special reconnaissance flights, and coastal radar. Especially importantly, satellite observations have been used to map sea-ice extent routinely since the early 1970s. The American Navy Joint Ice Center has produced weekly charts which have been digitised by NOAA. These data are summarized in Figure 7.20 which is based on analyses carried out on a 1° latitude x 2.5° longitude grid. Sea-ice is defined to be present when its concentration exceeds 10% (Ropelewski, 1983). Since about 1976 the areal extent of sea-ice in the Northern Hemisphere has varied about a constant climatological level but in 1972-1975 sea-ice extent was significantly less.

    • tonyheller says:

      The IPCC graph at the top of the page

      • Advocatus Diaboli says:

        That first graph is for the anomaly, while the tampered graph is for sea ice extent. Would be preferable to have an apples-to-apples comparison (both of them showing “anomaly” or both showing “extent”).

    • Bill says:

      As always, there are unforeseen benefits from trying something heretical. That’s just one of the things I like about our President, Donald J. Trump; he just comes right out and says we might need to shut it down for a year, or even more. With a great economy, government people might start picking up new jobs to get another paycheck, and decide the private sector is not so bad.

      Also, the fake science industry is taking it right in the neck, a long overdue measure. Who knows what other benefits will appear?

      Making America Great, Again And Again (MAGAA ™).

    • Thanks sooo much for that link. Leeches gasping and whining about the shortage of other creatures’ blood do gorge on is as good as the news can get. Thanks and a tip of the old schadenfreude!

  4. Steven Parker says:

    They don’t need data. They can just extrapolate backward with the data they have. Easy.

  5. Bill says:

    Shouldn’t Team Climate Fraud be capitalized? Nice one, btw.

    Would look great on a t-shirt, with a big hockey stick logo.

  6. GW Smith says:

    Blatant! In your face blatant! And they know they’ll never have to answer for it.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Thank you. That post was short and to the point, and it boils it down. I love the passion, the anger in that post (all deserved).

  7. The source on the fake graph is a government school in Econazi Germany. Three’ll get you five their Department of Ecological Purity already has Realclimatescience pegged as an ungoodthinkful source of Predatory Publishing. That’s the thing with “The Common Good over the Individual Good.” It’s an endless loop of iterative self-deception, and they never catch on. Here’s a WWII bomb being detonated in Bremen between two ecological-purity windmills during 2016 election season in the USA:

  8. MrZ says:

    Why don’t they produce an ice recovery graph like below?
    This one is for area, comparing max-min between day 240 and 365.
    Volume produce similar results but december values for 2018 are not available yet.

    Looks as if Arctic still has some freezer capacity.

  9. This just in: Bremen, home to the Econazi fake data college, hosted a bushwhacking mugger attack on an Alternative German politician (non-communist). Since Kristallnacht, Germans have been at the mercy of roving gangs and pretty much deprived of any Alternatives for Self-Defense.

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.