Skip to content

Incompetence or Fraud in Alaska?

May 9, 2017
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood


h/t Patsy Lacey



Alaska’s soils are taking far longer to freeze over as winter approaches than in previous decades, resulting in a surge in carbon dioxide emissions that could portend a much faster rate of global warming than scientists had previously estimated, according to new research.

Measurements of carbon dioxide levels taken from aircraft, satellites and on the ground show that the amount of CO2 emitted from Alaska’s frigid northern tundra increased by 70% between 1975 and 2015, in the period between October and December each year.

Researchers said warming temperatures and thawing soils were the likely cause of the increase in CO2 at a time of year when the upper layers of soil usually start freezing over as winter sets in.

In the Arctic summer, the upper level of soil, which sits above a vast sheet of permafrost that covers much of Alaska, thaws out and decomposing organic matter starts to produce CO2. From October, colder temperatures help freeze the soil again, locking up the CO2.

Alaska’s warming autumns and winters are altering this process. Whereas soils 40 years ago took about a month to completely freeze over, the process can now take three months or longer. In some places in the state, the soil is not freezing until January, particularly if there is a layer of insulating snow.

Autumn temperatures in Alaska have certainly increased since 1975.




But this is due to the switch in the PDO in the late 1970s, which brought warm water up from the Pacific.

Any half competent climatologist knows all about this.


But it is also apparent that recent Alaskan temperatures are similar to those in the 1930s to 50s, when the PDO was, as now, in warm phase.


So why do these junk scientists not tell us the truth?

Is it because they are simply incompetent?

Or is it deliberate fraud?

  1. Theyouk permalink
    May 9, 2017 10:12 pm

    Incompetence, illiteracy, ignorance, and apathy, all rolled together, and cultivated early and thoroughly in each new crop of journalism grads…which makes them perfect fodder for fraudulent media corporations. Unfortunately, good science writing in the global media outlets no longer exists.

    Keep up the good work Paul–your pieces are top-notch and put these bastards to shame (for those of us who value truth/knowledge/humility in science).

    • Curious George permalink
      May 10, 2017 4:39 pm

      Quite the contrary. The competence of an environment reporter for the Guardian US shines brightly. He is so much better than environmental scientists at the University of Alaska. Why, I don’t know; maybe because he never stops to look back, or to the side.

  2. markl permalink
    May 9, 2017 10:28 pm

    “Oh! what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive!” They’re just digging the hole deeper.

  3. May 9, 2017 11:06 pm

    “So Mrs Scientist
    ..what first attracted you to the research CONCLUSIONS,
    that bring in the $million grants ?”

  4. HotScot permalink
    May 9, 2017 11:30 pm

    I’m no scientist, but I would like to offer a suggestion that’s slightly more sinister than those above.

    I suspect when a scientific project appears, it might be from, perhaps, a Phd student’s thesis, which is obviously overseen by his/her lecturer. Many of them are undertaken all over the planet, every year, but perhaps only a few seem worthy of further research by a particularly ‘talented’ student and is selected for same by the lecturer?

    If, as seems the case, many senior academics fund their departments from research grants, it might appear an opportunity to select the most promising thesis (thesi?) which would attract the most funding in the search for the holy grail of climate change?

    After all, the UK alone is spending 9Bn a year on the subject, rising to some £14Bn a year in 2020 isn’t it? So that huge pot would seem ripe for plundering, would it not? There is also research funding coming from the rabidly AGW EU is there not?

    University departments churning out studies, many of which have an emphasis on, or contain seemingly relevant content to, climate change. Possibly influenced by senior academics who are quite happy to direct numerous wild goose chases, in the hope of international acclaim for finding the grail, and in the knowledge that anything remotely associated will be funded almost without question.

    Young students, with limited life experience perhaps, having the wool pulled over their eyes in their own blind pursuit of acknowledgement from their lecturers and community, and even in the hope they will curry favour with their lecturers in order they are awarded their qualifications.

    Indeed, Judith Curry has stated her observation of the fear of job loss amongst students and staff contradicting the climate change crusaders, senior academics protecting their own positions of authority.

    University administrators with their beady eyes on the filthy luca and pressurising their senior staff to go after the low hanging fruit.

    You guys know a lot more about the scientific academic world than I do, so I’m probably miles off the mark here. But it all does seem a little too coincidental and convenient.

    • Old Englander permalink
      May 10, 2017 9:41 am

      You are not off the mark at all. Trimmed of the more cynical bits, this is basically what goes on – follow the money – and in all scientific specialities. Climate “science” isn’t different in this respect; what’s different is the colossal political backing it has managed to accrue, after multiple different special political interests crystallised around it, seeing how the “cure” of unwinding the industrial revolution everywhere and forever played to their particular agendas. IMO it’s why the AGW theory is so ferociously defended – if facts and reason don’t work, demos, marches, personal smears, lawsuits, and even bullets will be deployed instead. (See attack on Christy’s offices at UAH). It’s a big industry, which MUST maintain that AGW is true – because if that “certainty” begins to crumble, so too will the subsidies and research £££ it feeds off.

    • May 10, 2017 11:04 am

      Well, I am a scientist and you are spot on. Science is basically common sense and inquiry tested. My major professor at The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, did not use grant monies for his students. I funded my MA and later my PhD work. As a taxonomist/ecosystemist, my work was pretty cheap. Many trips to the bog on Dolly Sods, WV for my MA and to the Gettysburg basin area of PA to my PhD research area, but little in the way of equipment.

      However, NSF (National Science Foundation) has been totally politicized for decades. A friend heard several colleagues while at a meeting there in the late ’80’s that they did not fund any project which was not singing from their hymnal.

      And the dirty little secret…..grants come with a cushion of “overhead” to the institution receiving it for “shipping and handling” so to speak. In recent years I was astounded to hear the percentages in this day and age. Thirty-forty percent added onto the actual grant for the institution (university). So universities are busy promoting and enlarging departments/programs which need large chunks of money for equipment, etc. Conversely, they are demoting things such as “organismal” botany and zoology. This leads humorously to people studying something at the cellular/molecular level and would not recognize it if they fell over it. This is certainly not helpful to the cause of science. Also the universities are busy making certain that those hired and degree projects are bringing in the maximum money. Better get that same hymnal and start singing.

  5. tom0mason permalink
    May 9, 2017 11:40 pm

    “So why do these junk scientists not tell us the truth?

    Is it because they are simply incompetent?”

    Or is it just evidence of ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’

    So again it’s a case of follow the money.


    If what they say is true then during the warmer months the area will green-up better as there is more CO2 available on warmer land, thus supporting more life. That I would say is a win for nature and the world, something to be celebrated and not something to feel fearful about.

    • May 10, 2017 11:09 am

      In the late ’60’s while I was working on my MA, the big worry was the burning of the rain forests in Central and South America and the release of CO2. Then, low and behold, they found that the Arctic tundra was happily slurping it up. Something else elsewhere will now take on the “slurping up” job.

  6. May 10, 2017 1:11 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  7. Ian Magness permalink
    May 10, 2017 6:13 am

    “Measurements of carbon dioxide levels taken from aircraft, satellites and on the ground show that the amount of CO2 emitted from Alaska’s frigid northern tundra increased by 70% between 1975 and 2015”
    Really? So there was comprehensive data across vast tracts of uninhabitable, inaccessible wilderness back in 1975? Data that can be compared to today’s figures with the statistical validity necessary to draw conclusions about Alaska if not the Arctic as a whole?
    Utter, risible nonsense – and that’s before we start analysing 1975 as a cherry-picked cold starting point.

    • Broadlands permalink
      May 10, 2017 12:22 pm

      1975 is chosen because that was when the “global cooling” frenzy was dying and the switch to “global warming” was beginning. The era of global satellite coverage began after 1978. This made comparisons with the warm 1920s and 1930s awkward.

  8. dennisambler permalink
    May 10, 2017 8:36 am

    From the “nothing new under the sun” department:

    “Troy L. Péwé once discovered an interesting patch of woods near Ester, about nine miles east of Fairbanks. The spruce and birch trees of this forest were underground, sandwiched between layers of earth. Each tree was 125,000 years old.

    Péwé said the frozen forest at Eva Creek thrived at a time that was up to 5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today, when there was little-to-no permafrost. Because the frozen forest is full of charred trees, Péwé suspects there were a lot of forest fires 125,000 years ago.

    Insect galleries carved into the bark of some of the frozen spruce indicate that the spruce bark beetle was also here then.

    What preserved the Eva Creek frozen forest? During a cooling period, about 120,000 years ago, the Eva Creek trees died and were eventually covered with loess from dust storms that began on the Tanana Flats.

    In an incredibly gradual process, loess coated the Eva Creek forest. The ancient trees froze as the climate became cold enough to produce permafrost.

    Péwé said that because the last period between ice ages was warmer than today, we may
    be able to predict the future by looking at the past.”

  9. Keitho permalink
    May 10, 2017 10:29 am

    Climate Change ® is just a bus that is used by politicians to get to their never arrived at destination. More and more power over us.

    They pay poor, opportunistic and activist, scientists to provide fuel for the bus.

    Political science of the worst type.

  10. May 10, 2017 12:16 pm

    ‘Incompetence or Fraud in Alaska?’

    Or both?

  11. Gerry, England permalink
    May 10, 2017 12:21 pm

    More Climate Science Fiction. For all the warming Arctic hysteria there are an awful lot of reports of record snowfall, of unusual low temperatures, not in keeping with the warmists’ prediction that the temperature was back on the rise.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: