New Video : Tough Times For Arctic Alarmists

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to New Video : Tough Times For Arctic Alarmists

  1. Mike says:

    I would like to download copies of the news paper cuttings you use but I am not sure how to find them. It would be good if there were links to them below the videos where they are shown.

  2. Brian D says:

    DMI Map August 1922

  3. Scott K Jonas says:

    There are now several videos on YouTube about the glacier in the Mount St. Helens crater, and how it is growing because the crater keeps sunlight from reaching the snow. I’ve only watched one of these, and they don’t seem to make the correlation with the Arctic that in winter there’s no sunlight at all for several months, in which case one would expect glaciers and ice sheets to grow similarly. As best I can tell they are global warming advocates, because they just couldn’t help but talk about nearby Mt. Rainier with its receding glaciers due to “global warming.” But at the same time they don’t sound surprised that the Mt. St. Helens glacier is growing even though glaciers aren’t supposed to be growing anymore anywhere if their global warming theory/hypothesis is correct. They also don’t seem to make the connection that at least at one time, as with any other glacier or ice sheet, there wasn’t any snow or ice to begin with.

  4. Vegieman says:

    Modeled vs Reality. Whatever. We can make models to look like we’d prefer to believe.

  5. Graeme No.3 says:

    Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) climatologists remain involuntarily stuck in thick pack ice while two sister ships remain waiting in a fjord at Spitsbergen. (more supplies)

    https://notrickszone.com/2020/05/24/german-awi-research-vessel-gets-stuck-in-arctic-two-year-drift-ice-too-thick/

    They’ve spent 2 years drifting in the Arctic Ocean and have discovered it has a lot of ice!
    Germany – your taxes at work?

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Graeme … not two years … they sailed into the pack ice in October 2019 & so 8 months at most drifting in the pack ice.

    • Phil. says:

      Graeme No.3 says:
      May 24, 2020 at 11:22 pm
      Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) climatologists remain involuntarily stuck in thick pack ice while two sister ships remain waiting in a fjord at Spitsbergen. (more supplies)

      They are voluntarily stuck in the ice, that was the whole point of the mission, find a thick ice floe, tie up to it and drift through the polar region while conducting experiments. The plan was to replenish stocks and change the research team at regular intervals. Unfortunately due to the Coronavirus pandemic the Norwegian government wouldn’t allow the previously planned changeover so they are now having to leave the ice to do the exchange. However as the ice drift is much faster than anticipated there isn’t much drift to go. I expect they’ll leave the ice in about 24hrs.

  6. Phil. says:

    According to NSIDC the current Arctic sea ice area is the lowest for the date in their record:
    https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2975.0;attach=149874;image

    • Disillusioned says:

      For climate propagandists, “their record” begins from 1979 on.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Yes. Really. Your bait and switch attempt is lame. In what decade did your original post’s graph begin; and are you really now going to try and attempt the argument that you climate propagandists – for decades – have not been proselytizing and holding up 1979 as the beginning of the end of your fictitious world of Bambi-like, low-CO2 climate perfection?

          • Gator says:

            Yep. The chart of “anomalies” clearly shows that 1979 is the year that TPTB decided that all other years should be measured against.

            a·nom·a·ly əˈnäməlē/ noun
            1. something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.

            This again illustrates the lunacy of the average leftist. They actually believe that there is such a thing as “normal” in climate and weather. And as for “expected”, well, we have all seen their failed models and predictions for decades now.

          • Phil. says:

            Yep. The chart of “anomalies” clearly shows that 1979 is the year that TPTB decided that all other years should be measured against.

            No the graph clearly says that the anomaly is measured relative to the mean of 1968-1996.

          • Gator says:

            Phil, can you read a graph? It doesn’t appear that you can, or you are a liar. Where does the anomaly line cross the zero line? Hmm?

            What they did was create a mean that made the anomaly zero out in 1979. This is the classic cherry pick that alarmists have been using for decades.

            Besides, there is no such thing as “normal” in climate or weather.

            Are you really as stupid as you pretend?

  7. Phil. says:

    Gator says:
    June 1, 2020 at 4:11 pm
    Phil, can you read a graph? It doesn’t appear that you can, or you are a liar. Where does the anomaly line cross the zero line? Hmm?

    What they did was create a mean that made the anomaly zero out in 1979. This is the classic cherry pick that alarmists have been using for decades.

    Really, they weren’t so committed to that strategy when they updated the graph a few years later, when they used the 1981-2010 average as the reference.
    https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/images/cryosphere/sotc/mean-anomaly-1953-2018.png

    Since you’re so sensitive to ‘cherry picking’ I’m surprised you’re not complaining about the head post which paints a false picture of the Arctic by focussing on a small corner of it (5%)?

    • Gator says:

      Once again Phail shows he has no issues with cherries, as long as they support the “correct” narrative. Using 1979, or the 1981-2010 average, is perfectly acceptable for ghouls like Phail when needing to cause alarm over a natural process. But heaven forbid anyone use what Phail deems as a cherry pick to show that there is no need for alarm, and no need to keep starving millions of innocent brown people to death annually.

      Phail, you are a lowlife POS, willing to sacrifice women and children for your leftist agenda. Keep illustrating how morally bankrupt you POS lefties are. With each of your posts, you push more people to the skeptic side, as nobody with a soul wants to associate with you sick lying ghouls.

      • Phil. says:

        This post indicates your problem Gator, you view it as a political issue. Whereas I view it as a scientific one, whether one uses 1979, the 1981-2010 average or 1969 as the reference they will all show the same decrease in sea ice over time.
        The cherry picking of the ice around Svalbard, ice which is flowing out of the Arctic ocean at a higher than normal rate and which will have melted away in a couple of months, as an indicator for the Arctic as a whole is deceptive. What about the East Siberian Sea which is exceptionally low for the date?
        This map shows where that ice north of Svalbard was in October (black star) and where it is now (red star).
        https://data.meereisportal.de/maps/mosaic/latest/sic_MOSAIC_last.png

        • Gator says:

          Phil, the Earth did not form between 1981-2000, or 1969. I spent eight years as an Earth Sciences student, which included Climatology. I have a degree in Remote Sensing and most of my time was spent studying Geology. My passion for the Earth Sciences was born out of skiing on glaciers, and hiking thru valleys that were once full of ice. You do not have the first clue as to what science actually is, you are a useful idiot for the left. You are nothing more than a leftist troll who pushes CAGW because it fits your political ideology. And you are more than willing to sacrifice millions of innocent women and children to get your selfish way.

          How dare you accuse me of political agenda (project much?), my agenda is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You are a mindless and heartless liar.

          Without models and cherry picks, your precious CAGW falls into the dustbin of pseudo science where it belongs.

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.