Arctic Reporting Report Card

Arctic sea ice extent is the highest in 18 years.

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

Extent is nearly identical to 1991.

                    2022                                                                  1991

This is what a Google search for “Arctic sea ice” turns up.

Burn acreage is down 80% since the 1930s.

National Interagency Fire Center

Here is another trick used by the press. Instead of fact checking their own false claim that sea ice is melting, they “fact check” another claim by mischaracterizing it.

Screenshot_12_13_21_Facebook_Frank_Raash_Nov_27_post.png (857×1151)

He was correct about Arctic sea ice volume.

Wayback Machine

But as soon as volume got above the 2004-2013 average, DMI quite predictably altered the data.

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20211204.png (728×631)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Arctic Reporting Report Card

  1. Jeff Dunetz says:

    Does this mean I don’t have to buy SCUBA equipment? We’re not all going to die tomorrow? Thanks for the report, It makes me happy when a truthteller publishes something that makes Al Gore sad.

  2. Caleb Shaw says:

    I was aware of the DMI tweaking its “volume” graph down, (and irked by it), but lacked the maps (and the time to seek them) which shows how they accomplished this tweak.

    Thank you so much for doing the digging, and producing the maps.

    Has there been any effort by DMI to explain how they can have been so mistaken about that large area of thick ice, which was “disappeared”??? It really would be a confession on their part that someone screwed up big time.

    I always compare the DMI thickness maps with the NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) thickness maps. I have always been puzzled because DMI tends to show ice as roughly twice as thick as NRL does. I know there are various problems involved in determining how thick ice is from outer space. I tended to give them the benefit of the doubt and to shrug the variance off as being due to different interpretations derived by different models. However, to have such a huge area of twelve-foot-thick ice vanish does seem to demand some sort of explanation.

    (I can’t help wondering if a battle is occurring at DMI between real scientists and Pravda scientists.)

    Current NRL maps show an interesting, slender crescent of 6-foot ice, many miles long and a mile or so wide, adrift in 3-foot ice, about a third of the way between the Pole and Franz Josef Land. I would expect such an obvious feature to appear as crimson 12-foot ice on the DMI map, but there is nothing much there. (Perhaps a faint swirl of 4-foot ice.) Hmm. Curiouser and curiouser.

    Keep up the good work. The purveyors of falsehood are digging a hole too deep to climb out of, and are getting a bit desperate, it seems. (Falsehood is a bad thing to cling to, for it isn’t Truth; they who cling to falsehood are grabbing on to a shadow.)

  3. Walter Gus Conrad Jr. says:

    Oh, no! Is DMI in cahoots with alarmist?
    I thought their data was reliable.

  4. D. J. Hawkins says:

    It appears the made some changes to the model that were instituted on 12/07.

    http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/

    Not commenting on motives…

Leave a Reply to Jeff Dunetz Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.