Rewriting The Arctic

Between 1990 and 2001, the IPCC rewrote the Arctic sea ice satellite record, and changed a trend of ice increasing to ice decreasing.

“The American Navy Joint Ice Center has produced weekly charts which have been digitised by NOAA …..  Since about 1976 the areal extent of sea-ice in the Northern Hemisphere has varied about a constant climatological level but in 1972-1975 sea-ice extent was significantly less.

1990 IPCC Report

1990 IPCC Report

2001 IPCC Report

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Rewriting The Arctic

  1. Jim Hunt says:

    Hello again Tony,

    Long time no see!

    A skeptical enquirer has directed my attention to your blog, and by some strange coincidence we have both published Arctic articles at almost exactly the same time!

    However the difference is that mine contains up to minute data whereas yours contains decades old comparisons between apples and oranges!

    • tonyheller says:

      Climate fraud has been going on for decades, and is getting exponentially worse.

    • Vegieman says:

      Up to date minutia! At least the dialogue with and amongst your followers is interesting, and even entertaining. You are very convincing as you swoon over those that agree with you and then openly ridicule and threaten dissenters. There are a few here that keep the zealots in check, and maybe on a rare occasion does Tony chide, but never have I witnessed Tony stoop to your level. Quoting Red Green (slightly modified): “On behalf of myself and Tony and the whole gang up here at Real Climate Science… keep your eye on the ice.”

      • Jim Hunt says:

        For some strange reason Tony’s account seems to have been “suspended” by the powers that be at Twatter. However rest assured that the context of this tweet is remarkably similar to that of Tony’s OP:

        At the risk of repeating myself:

        “Why doesn’t Tony reveal to his faithful band of merry (mostly) men the associated text describing what those 2 graphs of Arctic sea ice extent anomaly show?”

        • Vegieman says:

          Evidently you have the inside scoop that I and the other merry men and women here are too stupid to find out for ourselves. If the graphs need interpretation beyond what they blatantly show, please state your case. As for twitter, you are clearly one of the chosen. Your virtue signaling mask confirms it. Tony speaks the truth and has a spine to declare it without regard for the shallow actions of shameless thugs and their cowering minions that glory in suppressing it.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Evenin’ Vegieman (UTC)

            Why don’t you go away and take a look at the IPCC 1990 and 2001 reports that Tony references then come back to let us know what you’ve discovered?

            At the risk of repeating myself, repeating myself:

            “Why doesn’t Vegieman reveal to us all the associated text describing what those 2 graphs of Arctic sea ice extent anomaly show?”

        • Vegieman says:

          Jim, your social skills are amazing and your intelligence lofty. You are the accuser, state your accusation. I am not interested in playing the hot/cold game. If you are having a hard time with the 2001 graph, look here:

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Good morning Vegieman (UTC),

            Thank you for your kind words.

            That wasn’t so hard now, was it? Certainly not as hard as embedding images in comments here!


            The caption reads:

            “Figure 2.14: Monthly Arctic sea-ice extent anomalies, 1973 to 2000, relative to 1973 to 1996. The data are a blend of updated Walsh (Walsh, 1978), Goddard Space Flight Center satellite passive microwave (Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) and Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I)) derived data (Cavalieri et al., 1997) and National Centers for Environmental Prediction satellite passive microwave derived data (Grumbine, 1996). Updated digitised ice data for the Great Lakes are also included (Assel, 1983).”

            Now how about the 1990 equivalent?

        • Vegieman says:

          Jim, I am no match for your knowledge of polar ice and related tangents. I am sorry that I don’t share your view of the significance of the qualifying text associated with the two graphs. My regard for the inclusion of the data for 2001 that you find compelling is, it is what the IPCC had to do to project the narrative of diminishing ice due to man made climate change. Is there anything that is not being convoluted to further the cause of the climate change crisis makers?

          The arrogant, condescending manner you project is consistent with those that defend the absurdities of every godless, human denigrating, population destroying effort currently being perpetrated on mankind everywhere. What possesses you and your kind to glory in heaping hopelessness, misery, and despair on your neighbor? To come here and strut your depraved condition is evidence of your insecurity. Tony and most here share an integrity and regard for truth that you are severely deficient in. It would be good if you could abandon your sinking ship, but I know it is a very hard descent from the crows nest in which you reside.

  2. Steve Case says:

    Hi Tony, it’s been a while since you posted this one, it needs to be slapped up here more often. Once really isn’t enough.

  3. Allan Shelton says:

    If a person says one thing against AGW, he/she/it is fired.
    Yet NOAA staff tamper with the data to show warming and nothing happens.
    I wish that I knew what could be done to drain that NOAA swamp.

  4. conrad ziefle says:

    Repeat after me: Current weather is not climate change, current weather is not climate change. I would like to follow your arguments, but you made none.

  5. conrad ziefle says:

    Apples = actual data
    Oranges = data adjusted to make a theory functional

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.