The End Is Near …

The end of the Arctic melting scam is near. This week should be peak ice loss in the Arctic Basin, and there is little or no ice being lost.

Index of /DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/images/2019/07_Jul/

Meanwhile, climate alarmists are screaming about an imaginary Arctic heatwave at Alert, Nunavut – which looks like it never actually happened.

The warmest temperature at Alert this month was 54F – not 70F. Maybe someone took a temperature reading in his living room near the fireplace.


Alert July Weather 2019 – AccuWeather Forecast for Nunavut Canada

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to The End Is Near …

  1. Howard T Crawford says:

    Hi Tony:

    It occurred to me that so many young people don’t know the extent to which we relied on animals to power our lives not just for transportation but for industries prior to the use of coal and petroleum.

    Donkeys and horses turned grinding wheels and treadmills for 12+ hours a day, seven days a week. Some ponies in mines never saw daylight in their entire lives. The uninformed have no idea what steam and internal combustion engines did to free beasts of burden not just the pack animals.

    What they think of as dirty energy replaced a very short, smelly and cruel life for thousands upon thousands of poor animals.

  2. Cam says:

    Or you could actually go to Environment Canada and get the data.

    • tonyheller says:

      Or you could ask why Environment Canada’s numbers are so much higher than Accuweather numbers.

      • Cam says:

        Why do you believe a corporate weather service over Canadian military meteorologists (the source of EC data)? When I did my two Boxtops (resupply missions) into Alert in the mid-80s, they would post the temperatures daily and were quite accurate from my experience.

        • MrGrimnasty says:

          Between the 12th and 17th your Canadian Military seem to disagree with sveral other sources, whereas the days before and after agree well. There is a missing day too – it suggests the military’s thermometer went haywire – no?

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Good find Cam … I think there might be a siting issue with the Alert weather station since it seems to be prone to hot spikes. The day of the reported 21 C temps I looked at 3 other stations nearby and all were significantly lower in the 10 to 6 range I think.
      Inuvik is another Canuck station that seems to be poorly sited.

  3. Variant says:

    Per the data here:

    It hit 68F on 15-July, just short of the record (69.8F – not sure when that happened).

    Glancing through (which doesn’t make it easy to dump all the data for analysis at once), I cherry picked back to 2006 and seems like high temps in the 60F range are not unheard of.

  4. Jason Calley says:

    Well, now there is ambiguity on the actual temperature. I propose that the headlines be rewritten as “Deadly Heatwave Strikes Arctic! Average daily temp may be as high as 57 degrees F!”

  5. Michael Olsen says:

    The record is odd. According to “official” measurements, it was 21 C in Alert, but only 6 C in Resolute, which is the next closest weather station, about 500 miles south. Also, the data for the very next day for Alert are “officially” missing, which may indicate a problem with the equipment. Finally, the data for Alert don’t go back very far – only 1950 – so it’s possible there were warmer temperatures there earlier in the 20th century.

  6. David A says:

    Indeed, for the 14th, Accuweather reading is 21 degrees F lower, and much more in line with the surrounding days highs and lows.

  7. Phil. says:

    This week should be peak ice loss in the Arctic Basin, and there is little or no ice being lost.

    Yeah, just ~700,000 sq km in the last week, 8.1-7.4 million sq km.

    • spike55 says:

      poor phoolp, you didn’t read what was said, did you.

      … or you don’t know the region defined as the Arctic Basin.

      Either way, you lead with your IGNORANCE, as always.

      There has been very little sea ice loss in the Arctic Basin this year.

      • Phil. says:

        spike55 says:
        July 21, 2019 at 7:30 pm
        poor phoolp, you didn’t read what was said, did you.

        … or you don’t know the region defined as the Arctic Basin.

        I read it OK, however it would appear to be Tony who doesn’t know that, since he showed a map of the arctic as a whole not the basin. Also he claimed “This week should be peak ice loss in the Arctic Basin”, which is certainly not true of the Central Arctic Basin, which has barely got started by this time of year. Can probably expect a further million sq km in the next month.

        • spike55 says:

          “I read it OK”

          That is called a “back-out”

          Trying to hide your ignorance doesn’t fool anyone but yourself.

          • Phil. says:

            Like your covering up your ignorance of the fact that the Central Arctic Basin barely starts melting at this time of the year. Also Tony’s misleading statement that last week “should be peak ice loss in the Arctic Basin”, which is true for the Arctic as a whole but not the Central Arctic Basin.
            So either he made a mis-statement about the CAB or about the Arctic as a whole: “there is little or no ice being lost”. Either way his statement isn’t true.

          • rah says:

            Give it up. You were wrong, got caught, and your attempts to recover are only making you look like an ass.

          • spike55 says:

            Poor little phil.. digs deeper and deeper.

            So funny.

            If only you spent as much time think as you do ranting , you might actually come across as having a brain.

          • Phil. says:

            Give it up. You were wrong, got caught, and your attempts to recover are only making you look like an ass.

            Actually Tony has effectively admitted his mistake and made a new post about the Arctic melt with the same map although this time with the subtle change in comment:
            “This is supposed to be peak melt season in the Arctic, and very little melting is occurring.”
            I guess he’s hoping you won’t notice that he’s not calling it the Arctic Basin anymore?
            He’s still wrong of course since a further 100,000+ sq km melted yesterday and extent is lowest in the satellite record.

          • Gator says:

            Phail keeps forgetting that we are supposed to be ice free by now, according to his experts, so the Arctic Basin ice should be melting out.

            Now that Phail knows this, surely he will surely go to the alarmist sites, and parroting MSM to correct them. We all know how much Phail loves correcting errors.

          • Gator says:

            He’s still wrong of course since a further 100,000+ sq km melted yesterday and extent is lowest in the satellite record..

            Phail, bless you for being ever vigilant, and a defender of truth! Please share with us the many times you have corrected alarmists who have made ice free Arctic predictions.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Phil, you are so pathetic you made me smile.

          If Tony put a map of North America including the U.S. in a post about the U.S. and you missed it because of your poor reading skills, you would claim he didn’t know where the country was on the map, eh?

    • Jason Calley says:

      Some years back the CAGW alarmists when asked what exactly they meant by “ice free Arctic” replied that it would be anything below 1,000,000 square kilometers. I guess that means that a 700,000 square kilometer loss is even less than nothing.

      • Colorado Wellington says:


        “less than nothing” is a good turn of phrase in popular science for the general public but we must admit that strictly speaking all extent under 1 Wadhams *) is considered exactly zero in climate science mathematics.

        With arctic experts like Phil regularly reviewing the posts everyone is well advised to speak with scientific precision.

        *) there is a lively discussion among climate science mathematicians on how to treat negative Arctic ice extent in climate models but that is a different issue. Some guidance is provided by Soviet military mathematics that allowed for sine values rising up to 3 in the fiercest artillery battles of WWII.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Politruks attached to the Red Army battalions ordered the higher sine values as a surprise counter-tactics when they discovered that captured German ballistics tables only used values from 0 to 1. The move demonstrated the superiority of Scientific Communism over National Socialism. Soviet artillery officers who were reluctant to use the Party mathematics were executed as traitors or sent to the GULAG for re-education.

          • rah says:

            I’m going to repost here something I posted elsewhere in answer to a person that seemed to believe the Soviets won WW II with little help. A little real WW II history:

            n 1944 the US built more aircraft than the rest of the world combined.
            The program to build the B-29 that delivered the two atomic bombs cost more than the Manhattan project.
            In 1944 the US built more shipping tonnage than the rest of the nations of the world combined. They had to. It wasn’t Russian ships that carried all of the following lend lease supplies to Russia.
            When Stalin’s troops had to make the long trek through the mountains to get to Austria they did so using lend lease M-4A2 Sherman tanks and not their far less mechanically reliable and less road worthy T-34s. US tanks had rubber treads on their tracks while those of all other combatants generally had bare steel treads making them less road worthy in the long haul.
            The US, Britain, and Canada supplied the Soviets with a total of 22,800 armored vehicles during the war. The Soviets did not make a single armored infantry fighting vehicle during the war.
            The Russians produced only 343,624 cars and trucks during the war. The US alone supplied the Soviets with 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles, including 77,972 Jeeps, 151,053 1.5 t trucks and 200,622 2.5 t trucks. The Russian models were built based on 1930’s western technology and were no match for the newer and far more capable vehicles the US supplied them with.
            20% of the fighters and 30% of the bombers the Soviets used were US Made. Another 10% of the fighters were supplied by Britain. So a total of 30% of all combat aircraft the Soviets used in the war were supplied by her allies.
            Mega tons of vital raw materials were also shipped to Russia and almost all of the locomotives and the rolling stock used to haul the stuff once delivered and over over 1/2 of the steel rails the locomotives and rolling stock ran on were supplied by the US to Russia.
            A vitally important lend lease contribution, and one that most people don’t really know about but without which it would have been impossible for the Soviets to win most of their victories was in the realm of communications and signal intelligence. No modern Army can function without these assets and on the vast scales on the eastern fronts communications, signal intelligence, and counter signal intelligence were vital. The Soviets simply did not have them and had to rely on their American and British allies for virtually all of not only the equipment/hardware but the techniques to use them for most of the war.
            None of the above is intended to belittle the vital contribution of the Soviet war machine during the war or the accomplishments and sacrifices of it’s people. The cost in Russian lives during WW II is almost incomprehensible to most people in the west. But the simple fact is that it is highly doubtful the Soviets could have victorious without the contributions of her allies to her war effort. An effort and cost that may not have been necessary if Stalin hadn’t such an ass in the first place.

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.