Skip to content

How NASA Lie

May 22, 2015

By Paul Homewood




When NASA reported that Antarctic sea ice had reached a record maximum last September, they inevitably tried to downplay it.  


Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.

“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.


As we know, the truth is far from what Ms Parkinson would like us to believe.


Global sea ice has been at or above average for most of the last two years. Indeed, since satellite measurements began in 1979, sea ice has been remarkable stable for most of the time, other than a short spell between 2006 and 2012.

Real scientists at NASA must be appalled at the lies being propagated by the likes of Parkinson.

  1. Ben Vorlich permalink
    May 22, 2015 10:15 pm

    I very much doubt if anyone at NASA is appalled’ by any of this.

  2. AndyG55 permalink
    May 22, 2015 10:20 pm

    Poor Parkinson, his mind is still back in 2007

    Since 2013, Global sea ice area has been above the long term average for most of the time.

  3. May 22, 2015 10:31 pm

    E. M. Smith has a good post on the historical impact of climate change on civilizations.

    That also explains the possible serious consequences of NASA and DOE deceiving the public about solar and nuclear energy.

  4. May 23, 2015 12:22 am

    Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
    The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

    Deceptive indeed.

  5. tom0mason permalink
    May 23, 2015 2:14 am

    It is interesting to consider that if this area of ice was in the Norther Hemisphere and covering the Arctic, then there would be an ice link from Northern Germany, Northern Scotland and above all the way across to Canada.

    Just imagine being able to Ski-Doo from the coast of Newfoundland or Labrador Canada to Oban or Fort William in Scotland!

  6. Scott Scarborough permalink
    May 23, 2015 2:27 am

    Is there a grain of truth to these NASA statements? As far as I can tell they are just like Obama statements… total fabrications!

  7. May 23, 2015 2:34 am

    Thanks, Paul.
    The Arctic Sea Ice volume measurements have been recovering since 2013 (see graphic):
    “The April 2015 volume was 24.200 km3, close to the April 2010 value. The April 2015 volume was 26% below the maximum April ice volume in 1979 and 13% below the 1979-2014 mean, and about 1 standard deviation above the long term trend.”

    See PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis (Polar Science Center, Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly), at

  8. May 23, 2015 2:37 am

    PIIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly and Trends:

    • May 23, 2015 4:01 pm

      If you draw a linear average since 2006, in the PIOMAS graph, I believe it’d be flat, indicating that the lowering trend has stopped.
      In addition, the clear upward trend since 2012, shows that the Arctic ice is in fact rebounding from the minimum in the 2007-2012 period.

  9. Richard111 permalink
    May 23, 2015 6:41 am

    The constant claims of polar ice melt worried me. Having no prior experience in the subject I derived this simple explanation. Can anyone confirm my calculations please. They are not difficult.

    Area of sphere = 4 pi r^2
    average radius of Earth r = 6,357.5 km

    area of world = 507,905,132.8 sq km

    71% sea area = 360,612,644.3 sq km

    1 sq km = 1,000 x 1,000 = 1,000,000 sq metres.

    therefore sea area = 360,612,644,300,000 sq metres

    1 cubic kilometre = 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 cubic metres

    therefore 1 metre depth of total sea area = 360,612.6442 cubic kilometres

    times 1.1 to give equivalent ice volume = 396,673.9086 cubic kilometres

    Call it 400,000 cubic kilometres of ice must melt to raise global sea level
    by 1 metre and allowing a little extra for sea shore flooding.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      May 23, 2015 7:25 am

      If you look at GISP , you can see that the Arctic temperature was considerably warmer back a few thousands years ago.

      Plenty of other evidence seems to indicate that that 3000-5000 years ago the sea level was around a meter or so higher.

      So your calculations seem realistic.

      This all make sense, and it shows that Arctic warming and ice melt is NOTHING UNUSUAL, and is, in history, the NORMAL state, and, since we humans are still here, not in the least bit of a problem for life on Earth.

      We are in a period where that is actually an ABNORMALLY HIGH amount of sea ice compared to what there has been for most of the Holocene.

      If there was genuinely warming, it might be an indicator that sea levels could rise about 1m in the long term. But it isn’t warming, its currently steady or cooling slightly.

    • rwoollaston permalink
      May 23, 2015 9:33 am

      I haven’t been through your calculations, but surely your conclusion would only be true had the melted ice covered land. If it is floating on the sea there would be no change in sea level.

      • johnmarshall permalink
        May 23, 2015 10:33 am

        True, but the main calculations did not take that into account. Impossible to be exact as to the ratio of sea ice to continental.

      • Richard111 permalink
        May 23, 2015 12:07 pm

        To raise sea levels it has to be ice melting from the land. What got my interest was a comment on another blog where researchers “weighed” Antarctica’s ice sheet using gravitational satellite data and found that from 2003 to 2014, the ice sheet lost 92 billion tons of ice per year, the researchers report in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
        Well! 92 BILLION TONS a year got my attention. For the eleven years of data this makes a total of 1,012 BILLION TONS. Calculations told me that this was just over 1 CUBIC KILOMETRE of ice which would produce slightly LESS than 1 cubic kilometre of water.
        At that rate of ice loss it would take 44 THOUSAND YEARS to raise global sea levels by 1 metre.
        I want to show that this is an alarmist report of no standing but I need to know if my numbers are correct.

      • Glenn permalink
        May 23, 2015 3:28 pm

        Hi Richard. I just wanted to double check the data here. Shouldn’t 1012 billion (1 trillion roughly) tons of water be roughly 1000 cubic km in area and not 1 cubic km? 1 cubic meter of water = 1 ton, 1 cubic km = 1 billion tons (1000x1000x1000) therfore 1 trillion tons would be 1000 cubic kms. Is my math wrong here?

      • Richard111 permalink
        May 23, 2015 4:29 pm

        Ahhh… Glenn, I think you are right!
        92 billion x 11 years = 1012 billion therefore this is 1,000 plus CUBIC kilometres!!!!!!
        therefore if 1 metre sea level rise needs 400,000 cubic kilometres
        this rate of production would hit 1 metre target in 400 years!!!!
        This equates to 2.5 millimetres per year! Current sea level rise!
        If they are pulling a fast one they got me. Good practice. Thanks for waking me up.
        Would you care to check that 400,000 figure. 🙂

      • Richard111 permalink
        May 23, 2015 8:32 pm

        Whoops! Still got it wrong. That 1,012 billion tons of ice melted over 11 years so I’m out by a factor of ten. Will take some 4,000 years, not 400, to reach the 1 metre level of global sea rise. So that’s more like 2.5 millimetres per decade. So I think the original report still qualifies as alarmist. Phew!

    • johnmarshall permalink
      May 23, 2015 10:31 am

      Well it looks about right.

  10. May 23, 2015 8:26 am

    Must we very frustrating for the proponents of global warming that temperatures are not rising,

    despite the fact that we put more CO2 in the air.

    Note the drop in minimum temperatures.

  11. A C Osborn permalink
    May 23, 2015 10:56 am

    What “Scientists” in NASA?
    Are there any left?

  12. BLACK PEARL permalink
    May 23, 2015 11:02 am

    I thought the record of ice cover went back a little earlier than 1979 ?

    • May 24, 2015 12:14 am

      I think the satellites were launched in late 1978, and the first measurements taken in early 1979, but the first few months measurements were discarded due to the need to calibrate the instruments. Previous measurements were taken from older satellite data up to 10 years earlier, but are not compatible with the newer 1979 onwards measurements, and therefore are not used in the record, or is it because they showed the sea ice area to be much lower in the early 1970s? We will never know. If you link the two records together, they showv 1979 as a peak high level of sea ice.

  13. Bloke down the pub permalink
    May 23, 2015 11:41 am

    The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

    By magnitude, are they saying that the percentage of ice loss in the Arctic is twice that of the percentage of ice gain in the Antarctic?

    • May 23, 2015 3:35 pm

      The only “rapid” Arctic ice loss is around the minimum, when it is low anyway. So as a percentage it would look a lot.

      In absolute terms, it is easily offset in the Antarctic.

  14. ren permalink
    May 23, 2015 1:19 pm

    “Most mountains in Antarctica are not volcanic,” Wiens says, “but most in this area are. Is it because East and West Antarctica are slowly rifting apart? We don’t know exactly. But we think there is probably a hot spot in the mantle here producing magma far beneath the surface.”

    “People aren’t really sure what causes DPLs,” Lough says. “It seems to vary by volcanic complex, but most people think it’s the movement of magma and other fluids that leads to pressure-induced vibrations in cracks within volcanic and hydrothermal systems.”

    The new volcano will definitely erupt, researchers say. “In fact, because the radar shows a mountain beneath the ice, I think it has erupted in the past, before the rumblings we recorded.”

    The scientists calculated that an enormous eruption, one that released 1,000 times more energy than the typical eruption, would be necessary to breach the ice above the volcano. On the other hand, a subglacial eruption and the accompanying heat flow will melt a lot of ice.

    “The volcano will create millions of gallons of water beneath the ice—many lakes full,” Wiens says. The water will rush beneath the ice toward the sea and feed into the hydrological catchment of the MacAyeal Ice Stream, one of several major ice streams draining ice from Marie Byrd Land into the Ross Ice Shelf.

    By lubricating the bedrock, it will speed the flow of the overlying ice, perhaps increasing the rate of ice-mass loss in West Antarctica, Wiens says.

  15. May 23, 2015 3:53 pm

    “Real scientists at NASA must be appalled at the lies being propagated by the likes of Parkinson.”
    Real scientists at NASA should be speaking up about the great hoax that AGW is.
    They should be in an open internal debate at NASA about the hoax, if there were any “real scientists” left there.
    Unfortunately, their silence speaks volumes against them.

  16. May 23, 2015 4:39 pm

    did we not have a discussion some time ago on WUWT, where we discussed the position of the planets viz a viz the current global cooling?
    What are your current views?

    Note the current quiet sun, since the middle of April already,
    …..nobody is making any comments about.

  17. Kartoffel permalink
    May 24, 2015 11:16 am

    Science is about evidence not consensus, consensus-science is only Lyssenkisme

  18. May 25, 2015 11:24 am

    glaciers release ice into the ocean creating more ice in the ocean
    who’d have thought?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: