D-Day For Arctic Alarmists

Arctic sea ice extent is “normal,” growing quickly and higher than the 2001-2010 average.

Extent is third highest in the past 15 years.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to D-Day For Arctic Alarmists

  1. G W Smith says:

    Normal?! Oh no, that ruins everything!

  2. Cam says:

    Don’t worry, once they realize the extent is near normal, they’ll start harping on the volume again.

  3. Archie says:

    And yet, when I show this sort of evidence to my CC (trademarked) accepting associates, they say I need to consult real science. How can you ever hope to engage with such people!?

    • Sputnik says:

      What’s better than ‘real science”? Actual observations without fudging the figures.
      They’re seriously deluded this CC ™ lot.

  4. GeologyJim says:

    Great historical parallel in your headline, Tony

    The timing of the D-Day invasion required a dark moon (lunar cycle) and favorable weather/tides. It has been said that the most important decision effecting the D-Day success was made by meteorologists.

    Thank God there were no “Climate Scientists TM” in WWII

  5. Jongo says:

    Can we now expect that the method of measurement will be changed?

  6. Scissor says:

    Point to point, Arctic sea ice extent has been growing since 1974. I saw Mark Serreze today and he didn’t look too happy.

    • Jack Dale says:


      • Gator says:

        Jack, your graph is of meaningless anomalies as compared to a meaningless and cherrypicked period of time.

        Why do you support alarmism. Is it your hatred of poor brown people, or is it your desire to force others to do things that are harmful to themselves, others, and the environment?

        There is currently more ice in the Arctic than the average of the past 9000 years.

        Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 45: 1377-1397

        Authors: J.L. McKay, A. de Vernal, C. Hillaire-Marcel, C. Not, L. Polyak, and D. Darby

        Abstract: Cores from site HLY0501-05 on the Alaskan margin in the eastern Chukchi Sea were analyzed for their geochemical (organic carbon, d13Corg, Corg/N, and CaCO3) and palynological (dinocyst, pollen, and spores) content to document oceanographic changes during the Holocene. The chronology of the cores was established from 210Pb dating of near- surface sediments and 14C dating of bivalve shells. The sediments span the last 9000 years, possibly more, but with a gap between the base of the trigger core and top of the piston core. Sedimentation rates are very high (*156 cm/ka), allowing analyses with a decadal to centennial resolution. The data suggest a shift from a dominantly terrigenous to marine input from the early to late Holocene. Dinocyst assemblages are characterized by relatively high concentrations (600–7200 cysts/cm3) and high species diversity, allowing the use of the modern analogue technique for the reconstruction of sea-ice cover, summer temperature, and salinity. Results indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000 years. Superimposed on these long-term trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salinity that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500–3000 years. The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene. More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century.

        Think hard. What is truly significant? 30 years, or 9000 years? Take your time, I know this is hard on you. I’m sorry.

      • Gerald Machnee says:

        You list no source for that chart above.
        One of the sources for that chart had indicated that it is to be used with caution. Of course it is a popular chart with the CAGW crowd.
        For a better chart of the ice check the 4th chart in the following:

      • Scissor says:

        Yes, as reported by Parkinson. The satellite measured extent in 1974 was 14.4 million sq km. The 2020 maximum has not yet been reached and it’s already hundreds of thousands greater today. Two points determine a straight line. Note, I am only addressing the maximum. It’s possible that minimums could continue to decline or increase.

      • spike55 says:

        LOL, if you want to use that silly fabrication, you are saying that Arctic sea ice levels are not related to Arctic temperatures.


        You also ignore DOE data, https://i.postimg.cc/vZQp4gpQ/DOE_sats.jpg

        A far more realistic Arctic chart, that actually matches news reportsand measured temperatures is shown here

  7. James Sault says:

    Oops!! The Climate Alarmists will have to go back to extreme weather events scare mongering.

  8. gregole says:

    Plenty of ice in the Arctic. Who’d a thunk it. After decades of scare-mongering, there’s plenty of ice in the Arctic.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      I attended a talk by a former colleague yesterday.
      Interesting how some still believe that the Arctic ice is disappearing. They even mentioned NSIDC and how great they are???

  9. Eric Hamilton says:

    I saw the headline that Chinstrap penguin numbers are down. See the following artical here.


    Pleas read, review and then debunk as best you can!

  10. Jack Dale says:

    What NSIDC really posted:

    • Gator says:

      Who cares?

      Tony, unlike the grantologists, is not required to post alarmist data. He is allowed to think for himself, and report honestly.

      Why do you support alarmism? Why would you want to starve poor brown people to death?

    • tonyheller says:

      So you believe the graph I posted is not from the NSIDC link I provided?

    • spike55 says:

      Poor jack*ss, It hurts you to see SO MUCH sea ice up there, doesn’t it. ;-)

      You do know that the current extent is in about the TOP 5% of the current interglacial, don’t you.

      It really is anomalously HIGH, and is FAR above the Holocene average.

    • spike55 says:

      11th Feb 2020 (latest I have) NSIDC has the extent above ALL the last 15 years except 2008 and 2009

      Try not to be too miserable, Jack***.

  11. Try Wallin says:

    Tony, I have watched all your videos since your first, almost all from start to end.

    I have three topics I would like to bring up;
    1. The climate alarmists refer to different sites in support of their claim that all climate models have been accurate in their predictions. I have shown them the graph that presents the truth. It makes no difference to them. The sites they refer to is, among others, your opponent Zeke;
    and also;

    It would be interesting to hear your review of these pages.

    2. I’m an expert in SEO and as such I’ve tried to improve your videos on Youtube. But I can only do so much. You need to fill in the tags with important keywords. If you need help with this feel free to contact me on my email.

    3. Do you have a list of all your videos? I’ve now started to create a list of all your videos (divided into subgroups), but if you already have one it would save me some time.

    • Samuel Fullman says:

      Try, I’m interested in helping! I’m a software developer who contracts for a big company that has something to do with famous chess games. You can email me at .@ dot com.

      My interest would be categorizing the videos with a curated list of links which represent source of truth. I.e. I would have a terrible time finding where Tony gets these figures; at the same time a curated page with an explanation of the data’s production methods etc. would be an invaluable asset.

      Interestingly Mallen Baker says the same thing as you do about optimizing Tony’s site; even though he disagrees with Tony he comes across as civil and not “alarmist”. Anyway hit me up, I program in JS, Angular, Vue and PHP and want to help!

  12. Brian D says:

    Watch video with twitter rant partly about Nimbus records. You can use this link, Tony, to shut fools like that up.

    Along with Watts’ blog post.

  13. Jim Hunt says:

    Please forgive my enforced absence, witnessing Roger Pielke Jr.’s meltdown on Twitter.

    I keep trying to explain this to you Tony, but evidently you still haven’t taken on board the facts of the matter. Let’s start with JAXA extent shall we?

    • Gator says:

      oger Pielke Jr.’s meltdown

      More projection from the left…

      Some of the discussions of Pielke Sr. veered into the paranoid, with Skeptical Science team members on several occasions fantasizing that Pielke Sr. was perhaps the point man in a global climate denier conspiracy. If only they could somehow access his university emails, one mused, “Look, if the deniers’ emails are exposed I have no doubt that what we see will be unbelieveable, mind blowing, maybe even criminal. Why none has tried legitimitely (i.e., through FOIA) to access their emails is beyond me.”

      As time went by the Skeptical Science team’s attitude toward Pielke Sr. became increasingly unhinged and personal. John Cook, the founder of Skeptical Science, wrote, “”I’m finding myself very annoyed when I think about Pielke, having trouble thinking purely rationally and strategically when I think about him.” One team member expressed some concern about their attacks, “It looks like a great lion being mobbed by snarling jackals. I don’t like it.”


      Sorry Genocide Jim, but Tony is not a poor people hater like you, and never will be. Take your lies and hatred someplace where they will be appreciated, like Skeptical Science. They love lies, hate, and human despair there.

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Good morning Gator (UTC),

        Roger’s meltdown continued. Once his account was re-enabled he said his goodbyes, then left Twitter in a huff:

      • Gator says:

        The only unhinged parties are those that are attacking Roger Pielke Sr (et al). Jr was only defending his father from the troglodytes that attacked him, and Jr revealed the conspiracy behind these ridiculous alarmist attacks. I know that to you who hate all poor brown people, this seems unhinged, but it is exactly how honest and sane people react to lies that are being told about their loved ones.

        When you stop enabling the starving of millions of innocent poor brown people annually, you will have moral authority to judge others.

        Until then, f off.

    • spike55 says:

      WOW, there really is ONE HECK OF A LOT of sea ice up there, isn’t there Jimbo.

      As a matter of FACT, there is FAR MORE than for nearly ALL of the last 10,000 years.

      But you are too much of a deceitful lying coward and a climate change denier to take on board that FACT.

    • spike55 says:

      WOW, nearly 60 times the area of the UK

      You really are being VERY STUPID with your DENIAL of just how much sea ice there currently is, jimbo.

      I’m prepared to admit that the levels are somewhat down from the EXTREME ANOMALOUS HIGHS of the LIA and late 1970’s

      So, come on, I DARE you to admit that current levels are far above those for most of the last 10,000 years

      Don’t be a cowardly climate change denier all your miserable life. !

      • Jim Hunt says:

        At the risk of repeating myself, repeating myself:


        “No answer!” came the stern reply.

        • Gator says:

          Genocide Jim, why do you feign concern over repeating yourself? It is all you do, you repeat the same lies daily. And as I pointed out many times before, nobody cares.

          Pew Research polling found: ‘Dealing with global warming’ ended up in second last place in 2007. Between 2008 and 2013, it ranked last (select a year and then ‘Overall’ here). Here’s what happened after that:

          2014: second last
          2015 second last
          2016 third last (the first year Pew began calling it ‘global climate change’)
          2017: second last (see bottom of the page)
          2018: second last
          2019 second last

          Moral of the story: There has never been any evidence that climate change is a top concern for most Americans. This is not a crowd-pleaser or a vote-getter.

          The UN poll still has climate change in dead last.

          Tony does not feel the need to reply to every idiotic post, you of all trolls should know this.

          Turnabout: You have never explained why you hate poor brown people so very much that you are willing to sacrifice millions annually for your leftist agenda.

          “No answer!” came the stern reply.

        • spike55 says:

          Why would Tony answer a known LIAR and conman like you, Jimbo.?

          You still haven’t admitted to the fact that there is currently far more sea ice in the Arctic than there has been for nearly all of the last 10,000 years.

          Is it cowardice or ignorance, for just flat out climate change denial?

        • spike55 says:

          It is noted that the COWARD called Jimbo refuses to accept the dare

          So, come on, I DARE you to admit that current levels are far above those for most of the last 10,000 years

          Stop being a cowardly worm, Jimbo, face the facts for a change.

    • rah says:

      Yawn! Get back to me when the Arctic is ice free Jim. I have more interesting and informative things to do than read your never varying totally predictable BS. Things like watch the paint dry in the bedroom we just painted.

      • Jim Hunt says:

        It’s not quite there yet rah!

        However it is still heading that direction:

        • Gator says:

          Why do you care Genocide Jim?

          Is starving to death millions of innocent poor brown people really more important than Arctic ice that is still above the average of the past 9000 years? Because that is the net result of your alarmism over Arctic ice. As real Nobel Laureates have told us…

          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.



          So do tell us Genocide Jim, why do you hate poor brown people so very much?

        • spike55 says:

          WOW, that is ONE HECK OF A LOT OF SEA ICE up there, isn’t there, Jimbo.

          FAR MORE than there has been for nearly all the last 10,000 years.

          And no Jimbo, the trend the last decade or more has been going no-where.

          Its not even down to anywhere close to the Holocene average yet…. Still in the TOP 5%

Leave a Reply

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