Troubling Times For Arctic Alarmists

Climate alarmists believe there is as massive heatwave going on in the Arctic.

Eric Holthaus on Twitter: “Another stunning record this week

But the ice has a different opinion. Over the past week, there has been very little ice loss in the Arctic Basin. The ice edge has been growing in the East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Seas. In order to get a big melt this summer, there would have to be a lot of ice loss in the Beaufort Sea before the end of July.

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

The bad news for alarmists is that the Beaufort Sea is going to be very cold this week.

10-Day Temperature Outlook

The next map overlays the below freezing temperature forecast for the next nine days in blue. The big melt which alarmists need is not going to happen.

Update : Over the past 24 hours there has been almost no change in Arctic ice extent.

And the Northwest Passage is blocked with 100% concentration ice.

Satellite Photo

Another year of Arctic comedy provided by our top government funded scientists.

Expert: Arctic polar cap may disappear this summer_English_Xinhua

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

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

Star-News – Google News Archive Search

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’

Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

Wayback Machine

The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search

Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013 | Sierra Club Canada

Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian

The End of the Arctic? Ocean Could be Ice Free by 2015 – The Daily Beast

A farewell to ice | Review | Chemistry World

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Troubling Times For Arctic Alarmists

  1. Gator says:

    We need another “AA” mutual aid fellowship, with the stated purpose of enabling its members to stop making and believing silly alarming Arctic predictions, and help other Arctic Alarmists achieve proper mental health.

    Hi my name is Peter, and I’m an Arctic Alarmist

  2. gofer says:

    Down stream from all the agw propaganda, the zero emissions fanatics are creating more emissions with stupid new electric machines…

    Zero emissions construction diggers battery last two hours. Takes 8 hours on diesel generator to recharge:

  3. rah says:

    Peter Wadhams, never right! Time and again he has predicted a virtually ice free arctic and time and again he has been wrong. And all indications are that his prediction will never occur in his life time. Really now, anyone that takes that old paranoid fool seriously needs to be ignored.

  4. Mr Sir says:

    According to this chart, the arctic’s sea ice thickness appears to be lower than that of the last two years.

    • spike55 says:

      SO WHAT. !!

      Its still within 1 standard deviation of the 15 year mean

      Its still WAY HIGHER than ZERO and

      Still WAY HIGHER than for all but about 5% of the last 10,000 years

      You truly are an IGNORANT DENIER of climate change, aren’t you ms slur

      • Andy says:

        Spike, can you stop putting up that manipulated graph from a website ?

        The original source, Stein, said it shows nothing of the sort from his work and was hijacked by an anti AGW website to put their spin on it.

        It went from proper science to web based bias unfortunately.

        It’s been gone over time and time again on this forum and still people post it up to try and show something that aint.



        • spike55 says:

          Can you stop DENYING data .

          There is NO DATA CHANGE from the original graph

          It is NOT manipulated.

          Only a mathematical CRETIN, like you, would DENY that this graph shows the EXACTLY what was shown on the original graph, just that the actual time periods have been highlighted to educate morons like you.

          Please explain how the DATA has been changed, please explain how it shows anything else but the original graph, just in a different orientation.

          Please explain why the periods noted are not in the correct place

          You really are an incompetent little ass, aren’t you little Andy

        • spike55 says:

          Also, please explain why the Stein graph, rotated and annotated, is almost an exact mirror of the GRIP temperature series.

          Or are you saying that temperature and sea ice AREN’T inversely correlated.

          That would really stuff up the AGW scam, wouldn’t it, little-andy

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Reader Andy-Andy aka Andy1:

          Your tactics still don’t work despite the purposefully vague accusations and obfuscations of your comment. Here is what happened and how you got your ass handed to you at NoTricksZone:

          Andy-Andy knows what happened to him but for everyone else who did not follow the original discussion:

          Read the whole thing.

          Andy1 4. March 2017 at 3:08 PM
          Can you post a link to the original article please

          Kenneth Richard 4. March 2017 at 5:17 PM
The embedded link was provided by clicking on the words Stein et al., 2017, which is located below the graph and above the text in the body of the article. It is behind a paywall, unfortunately, but if you click on the “pdf” button you can see the first page clearly, and if you scroll down the obfuscated pages about half-way, you can see the graph of “sea ice cover” for the Holocene. Renting the paper costs $6. Here is the link again:

          Andy1 5. March 2017 at 6:44 PM | Permalink
          Thanks Kenneth,
          Because you had chopped the scale out of another table, turned it 90 degrees, compressed it in the X axis and then added your own lables I did not spot it immediately. Can you blame me?
          For a website called NotricksZone you need to better post links to proper scientific work, better links to items inside those works and NOT start putting your own bits on top as you see fit, therefore misrepresenting what the scientist was saying in the first place.
          Or you can change your website name to LOTSofTRICKSzone and do all of the above with no problem.

          Kenneth Richard 6. March 2017 at 1:23 AM
          I have no idea why it couldn’t be recognized in the first place since its colors and description were visibly clear in the paper. It’s not as if there are dozens of tri-hue blue graphs with “sea ice cover” on them from the paper, and one had to wade through them all to find it.
          For the record, I “chopped” it from the table because the other elements from the same table were not going to be recognizable to the casual viewer as having anything to do with sea ice. The more convoluted and complicated a graph is, the less likely people will understand it or try to decipher it. There is nothing “tricky” about specifically selecting a sea ice graph from a table that includes depictions of brassicasterol, as few people would find any relevance to sea ice.
          And the reason I compressed it (which in no way changes what it depicts) is because this particular format (WordPress) does not support wide images, as the wider it is the smaller the font and the harder it is to read. I don’t find anything sinister about aiding user-friendliness, making images easier for viewers to read. Same with vertical/sideways graphs versus horizontal. No one looks at a graph of sea ice or temperature from a sideways angle. The only reason it was sideways in the paper is because the authors were trying to squeeze in as many images as they could into the existing space.
          As for your very odd contention that this graph created by the authors “misrepresents” what the authors themselves were “saying in the first place”, perhaps you didn’t read the abstract of the paper itself:

          The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP.
          What the abstract says is exactly what this graph actually depicts. In other words, it is probably the most cogent graph from the entire paper. If you think otherwise, please illuminate us with what graph you think should be used as representative from the paper.
          It is my suspicion that the only reason you are daftly attempting to criticize what has been done here is that you don’t like what you see. You don’t like to think that Arctic sea ice is more extensive now than it has been for nearly the entire Holocene. You don’t like to think that scientists attribute sea ice trend variations to solar forcing, as these conclusions undermine the narrative that humans cause sea ice to rise up and down. So, instead of offering something substantive, you whine that the graph’s X axis has been compressed and been re-positioned horizontally for easier viewing. You whine about the “lables” [sic] for the 20C, MWP, and LIA.
          I would also surmise that you were being dishonest when you wrote that you “can’t find” the graph in the paper you claimed to have downloaded, as you were disingenuously trying to suggest that this graph wasn’t even in the paper when it is very prominent and easy to see with even a cursory skimming.
          It does not appear that your tactic has worked here, Andy1. Perhaps you can offer criticism that is a little more substantive than “you had chopped the scale out of another table” next time.

          • spike55 says:

            Basically, little-andy’s comments are initiated by his gross incompetence at maths, science. or anything to do with actual data.

            He can’t follow a link.

            He get “dis-oriented” when a graph is changed from vertical to horizontal and squeezed for readability.

            He doesn’t have a clue when the RWP, MWP and LIA actually were, even when they are pointed out on the graph.

            GROSS and incompetent. !

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Yep, he’s a dumbass.

          • Colorado Wellington says:


            I wonder if little Andy is in his own mind a giant of pristine science who uncovered a fraudulent graph or if he’s so childish that he thinks his vagueness would prevent anyone from finding what about the embarrassment he suffered when he attacked Kenneth Richard at NoTricksZone.

            But then again I think he’s quite useful. A useful dumbass. He draws other little carnival barker wannabees out of the woodwork like the one below in this thread.

            And do you remember the little “wong gwaf” troll from a couple of years ago?

          • Gator says:

            CW – Andy and his ilk are completely self unaware. They never get to enjoy the rich irony of the comments they post. Our little Andy is so self unaware that he feels the need to sign his name after each comment, even though we all see it right above the date and time, “Andy says”. Poor little self unaware Andy.

          • Colorado Wellington says:


            You get why I call him Andy-Andy. He likes to see his name printed twice in every comment.

        • spike55 says:

          Just for little-andy, I’ve turned this graph of Canadian arctic temperatures upside down,

          Can anyone NOT see the how well Stein’s Arctic sea ice extent, as graphed horizontally, matched the temperature?

      • cenuijmu says:

        Stop posting bogus graphs

        • spike55 says:

          Its NOT bogus.

          Apart from orientation , it is the EXACT graph from the paper.

          And his comment from the text

        • spike55 says:

          And for the perennially ignorant,

          Here is the full graph from the paper.

          Slide the time axis across, and rotate, you get the EXACT graph that I first posted.

          Nothing bogus at all.

          All the data is exactly as Stein himself graphed it.

        • Colorado Wellington says:


          Which graphs are bogus and why?

  5. Jason Calley says:

    But, but, but… THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!! That was the big rallying cry of all the CAGW cultists twenty years ago. As someone with a good knowledge of how real science works that cry was like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

    If any alarmist now tells me that “new studies show…” all I have to do is remind them of what they predicted ten or twenty years ago, and tell them that they can’t change their predictions now because THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!

  6. Windsong says:

    Very capable Scandinavian ice breaking research ships are having a tough time this summer. Ice Age Now had a post on 7/16 about the Norwegian Kronprins Haakon being turned back by very thick in early July. Pierre Gosselin at No Tricks Zone had a post on 7/19 stating the Swedish Oden has been rerouted this week due to heavy ice on its planned route through the Northwest Passage. Both of these ships, although smaller, have roughly the same ice breaking ability as the USCG’s lone medium icebreaker, USCGC Healy.

  7. Cam says:

    The previous record for Alert was 1956 and it was 20c. Panic over a once in 60+ year temperature record is nuts.

  8. DCA says:

    The latest expedition to document the melting arctic and transit the northwest passage (an English professor from Penn State):

    Note today’s location of the Oden – not exactly close – and the absence of any other vessels in the northwest passage.

  9. Andy says:

    Still too early to tell what the summer minimum will be.

    In the Antarctic the reduction of sea ice from the highs of a few years back continues with no real explanation. Still puzzling.

    I get the MSM has lost interest in the Arctic for a while, might seem a bit boring compared to 2012.

    The interesting fact is that after 2007, an outlier year, people expected a rebound, which happened, but before the downward decent again.

    Now every year is 2007 and in 5 years time maybe every year will be 2012? OR maybe not. The polar regions are always good for a surprise. Why I keep watching.

    Cheers for posting polar stuff Tony.

    • rah says:

      I suspect the media has lost interest because it’s looking like there isn’t a chance in hell of any ship of any size transiting the various NW passages this year despite promises year after year that it would become a common event. .

    • spike55 says:

      Whatever the summer minimum is , it will be WAY above the average for the last 10,000 years.

      Probably in the top 5-10% as Stein’s graph, rotated and the periods indicated for morons that don’t know history , clearly shows.

    • spike55 says:

      or you could look at different regions of the Arctic.

      Which, just like the Stein graph, show that we are only a bit down from the largest extent in the last 10,000 years.

    • spike55 says:


    • spike55 says:

      Funny how they all show exactly the same thing as Stein’s graph, hey , little-mind andy.

      Or the Icelandic sea ice charts

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Andy! “In the Antarctic the reduction of sea ice from the highs of a few years back continues with no real explanation. Still puzzling. ”

      Well, a few years ago, when the Antarctic ice was setting new records for greatest extent the CAGW crowd told us it was the expected result from a warming Antarctic. “The melting Antarctic ice cap is draining frigid fresh water into the area surrounding the continent. This is making the sea water less saline, and so it is freezing more easily and increasing ice area.” Assuming that the alarmists were telling us what they truly believed, the conclusion is obvious. The sea ice now is declining, therefore Antarctica must be getting colder and less fresh water is running into the sea. Simple solution — but not one I have heard from the alarmists. I wonder why not…

  10. spike55 says:


  11. spike55 says:

    Just for little-andy…

    Here is the Stein graph exactly as it appears in the paper, just with the time periods added for the ignorant of mind.

    Please explain how this graph is any different from the one I initially posted.

Leave a Reply

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