Dark Snow Touches Down in Greenland for 2015 Season

May 29, 2015

kanger529

I’m sitting in the cafe at the airstrip in Kangerlussuaq, the main port of entry for most folks coming in to Greenland. I believe this is the only place with daily, year round service from Europe – a single “Mothership” Airbus 330, making the run daily from Copenhagen.  There’s a lot of patchy snow in the vicinity – forgot May is still pretty cold here, having come from blossom time in Scandanavia.

I immediately ran into microbiologist Marek Stibal, who is already here camping not far away, taking sediment samples to flesh out the picture of biological activity on the ice.

In about 90 minutes I’ll take another hop to Ilulissat, site of a major Arctic conference next week, where I hope to catch up with a number of very active scientists.  Jason Box is an organizer of the event, and we’ll join up in a few days.

My task this summer is to get as many interviews as possible, as well as shoot a lot of additional footage – and to that end, I’ll be staying in some visually stunning places – Ilulissat for one, and in a week, a place called Uummannaq.

uumannaq

More on this later, once I get settled in Ilulissat.

supportdarksnow

28 Responses to “Dark Snow Touches Down in Greenland for 2015 Season”

  1. russellseitz Says:

    You might keep a mass spec eye on nickel and vanadium levels arriving in the dark stuff, as ISIS is staging somethingof a replay of the Kuwait oil fires in Iraq.

    http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/05/what-if-they-had-nuclear-winter-and.html

  2. dumboldguy Says:

    Leave it to that idiot Watts to conflate the oil fires with 20+ year old natterings about nuclear winter. When you are struggling to find any “proof” to support your ideological beliefs, I guess you will try to connect up any two dots, no matter how far apart they may be.

    Sagan and friends overcooked the nuclear winter idea back then, and heaven help us, but Fred Singer was closer to the truth with his rebuttal to Sagan.

    (And do you really think there will be a measurable increase in nickel and vanadium levels in Greenland because of this fire?)


    • Ugh, Dumbo, please have a second look at Russel’s blog. It is seriously non-serious.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        I have given Russell’s blog “looks” on more than one occasion. I try not to go there too often because doing so is dangerous to one’s mental health, and it has been proven that each such visit results in a loss of 5 to 10 IQ points, and that’s something dumb old guys can’t afford.

        I have no need to become as dumb, deluded, and “seriously non-serious” as Russell, so I won’t go there unless you saw something specific that is particularly outrageous and needs to be added to my “Russell is a flaming anal orifice” files (which now exceed the Gelbspan files in size).


        • Hmmm. There are “serious” sites like the real WUWT that would seriously threaten your IQ. Then, there are serious people commenting on these, which makes the whole “debate” really depressing. BTW, depression is a widespread cause of IQ loss. Russel’s work I find utterly refreshing. The old man is not wasting his gifts. We need more scientifically and visually gifted satirists.

          GIMME MORE CLIMATE SATIRE! You folks can’t be seriously continuing this lame old climate debate shit. HOMO SAPIENS IS DEAD! Long live sarcasm and satire!

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Ooops! I didn’t get my nap today and my fogged old brain read Russell COOK rather than the Russell SEITZ that should have been obvious (since I was responding to his comment—-duh!).

            I have visited V V UWT also, and it is a great site. I apologize for confusing the two. Maybe I am getting as senile as my wife suggests.

            HOMO SAPIENS IS INDEED DEAD! Long live sarcasm and satire!


        • Again, unsolicited proof of two things: I am indeed living luxuriously in “d.o.g.”‘s mind, and he literally is still unable to refute a single word I say about myriad unsupportable assertions and narratives within the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are ‘paid/instructed to lie and misinform.’ Friends, go back through all his prior comments leveled at me, you’ll see he doesn’t dispute the wipeouts I point to (neither does Desmog, ICYMI) about Oreskes’ enslavement to Gelbspan’s accusation, Gelbspan’s sheer lack of evidence to prove the accusation, etc & so forth.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Russell,

            You are a deluded and demented legend in your own mind and a waste of our time. I don’t “dispute” your horseshit because there is no truth there to dispute, I merely remind all of how sorry you are (by your own admission) and what an intellectual whore you are. That’s all the time I will spend on you.

            Go away (etc. and so forth)

            russell,

            Go away etc. and so forth

  3. russellseitz Says:

    To answer Dumboldguy’s actual question, Iraqi oil soot, coming as it does from marine cretaceous formations has a distinct V and Ni porhyrin signature.

    view ‘nuclear winter’ as the prototype of postmodern climate modeling hype, since sadly emulated by both sides trying to reframe the science for political effect.

    The sight of scientists trying to scare people is very scary indeed.


  4. “… forgot May is still pretty cold here …”

    Anybody relay that info to Ms Schatzie at Schatzie’s Earth Project, the lady who called me and others “murderers” (http://schatziesearthproject.com/2015/05/04/murdered-by-climate-change-deniers/) because a pair of Arctic explorers supposedly died why skiing somewhat near Resolute in their skivvies? She never could answer my question of what the actual temperatures were near that area around the time of the trajedy, and has gone so far as to delete my Resolute weather station web link rather than face reality: https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/597840037376471040

    She deleted my first comment from her blog, but it lives on in archive form as the #1 post in the comment section here https://archive.is/1BdhJ . I must say, I do appreciate Peter Sinclair comprehending the futility of deleting comments from this blog here. As people like Ms Schatzie show, it only massively undermines their position when they flee from constructive criticism, particularly when it invites much-needed introspection.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha and LMAO!

      The Amazing Ethical Russel Cook Ethics Show swings back through Crock territory, and Russell again entertains us with his hypocrisy (and logic and ethics fails).

      He complains that Ms. Schatzie fails to answer his inane question? LOL How many times has Russell failed to answer my MANY questions to him about the exponential decline of Arctic Sea Ice? Dozens?

      Peter!!?? Is it true that you “comprehend the futility of deleting comments from this blog here” (sic), as Russell so delusionally believes? Or is it that you allow whores like Russell to post as a bad example to the world and proof of how bankrupt the deniers are? Does Russell now determine editorial policy for Crock?

      And thank you for the l;augh of the day, Russell. The level of irony and hypocrisy in your talking about “…fleeing from constructive criticism, particularly when it invites much-needed introspection” is mindblowing.

  5. russellseitz Says:

    DOG

    If it does show, then points to Alan Robock’s side on the tropospheric soot spread needed to believe in his post-meltdown nuclear winter models. If it doesn’t make it, another nail in the coffin of the apocalyptic TTAPS model Sagan and Ehrlich ballyhooed.

    RC:

    FYI Dick Lindzen volunteered that he got $2,500 per diem to give a talk the last time I saw him; why didn’t you just ask him instead of writing a counterfactual rant?

    Juding by the caliber of their work the real problem with the ‘skeptic Scientists ” on the Heartland circuit is their failure to provide value for money. Dick excepted, they really aren’t worth paying.


    • “… Dick Lindzen volunteered that he got $2,500 per diem to give a talk the last time I saw him ….”

      Everybody notice the sidestep and false premise response? When was the last you saw him? 1995? “Counterfactual rant??” Hardly. What I pointed to in concise words was a widespread talking point. You dispute how widespread it is? You dispute the illogic of Dr Lindzen being reported in 1995 as charging that amount and never changing the figure in 20 years?

      I have the luxury of being able to correspond with Dr Lindzen, I’ll ask him if he recalls the last time he spoke with you.

  6. Gingerbaker Says:

    ” …he literally is still unable to refute a single word I say about myriad unsupportable assertions and narratives within the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are ‘paid/instructed to lie and misinform.’”

    No, Russel, it’s people like you who are being paid to lie. People who get paid to post certain types of comments on blogs. People who get paid to run blogs which publish incorrect, sloppy, unscientifically-valid junk and present it as if it is solid information. People who give speeches and lectures for honoraria which cast FUD on legitimate AGW scientific findings. People who earn remuneration for writing public statements, like, for instance, to newspapers’ opinions pages.

    People who write false statements, lies, innuendo, character assassinations; people who promulgate ridiculous conspiracy theories; people who receive monies to run denial blogs; people who receive monies to run denialist think tanks; people who receive monies to steal e-mail accounts; people who receive monies to legally harass bona fide scientists.

    All these people who tell untruth after untruth in public and get paid for it by sources that benefit from those untruths. Again. And Again. And again. A system, you see, which doesn’t require the Payor to explicitly instruct the Payee to “lie”.

    Russell Cook – you see I did not accuse you of being one of those people. I don’t know if or how much you are paid. But… if you’re NOT being paid for your efforts, brother you are sure doing it wrong! I mean, anyone and everyone is wrong occasionally. But, to be consistently wrong, and consistently wrong in the same direction…… well, a man who can stay that wrong for so, so long a time, and to pour your passion into it ….should be able to earn a pretty impressive income these days considering how much money is being passed around.

    I mean, it is a LOT of fracking money, Russell Cook. Pity for you if a nice big fat gooey piece of that bacon isn’t heading your way.


    • “… Russel, it’s people like you who are being paid to lie. People who get paid to post certain types of comments on blogs. People who get paid to run blogs which publish incorrect, sloppy, unscientifically-valid junk ….. Russell Cook – you see I did not accuse you of being one of those people.”

      Oh, anonymous commenter “Gingerbaker”, do you not even read what you write? You accuse me of being paid to lie, and then you say you don’t accuse me of being among people paid to lie. And can you be any more predictable? I note how I’ve written a collective 5-year body of work detailing myriad wipeouts within the smear of skeptic climate scientists, where nobody lifts a finger to dispute any specific detail ……….. and you fail to even lift a finger to refute any specific detail in my work.

      ‘Incorrect, false statements, lies, innuendo, character assassinations’ within GelbspanFiles.com or any of my other online articles? Man up, put your money where your mouth is, I have no doubt Peter Sinclair here will give you top billing on an exclusive blog post if you can nail me on what you claim I do. What spooks the daylights out of me is how you fellows don’t even give the ol’ college try. Surely I’ve made at least one basic misinterpretation of some detail somewhere.

      But the core problem – in case you never see it – is your and others’ fixation on money. Would it not be more devastating to first prove the stuff I write is demonstratively false, fed to me by some nefarious slick handlers? Geeze louise, if your 20-year defense of AGW is to first call any critic you encounter a crook, then all you ever do is build on the appearance that you literally cannot defend your core beliefs against ANY criticism. What part of that problem do you not see?

      By default of saying that anybody who goes to the efforts I do is stupid if they are not paid…….. are you suggesting that you, commenter “d.o.g.” and Peter Sinclair ARE paid to say what you-all say??

      Again, time for you-all to develop an exit strategy, your unsupportable talking points are collapsing across the board. Embrace critical thinking, embrace introspection: https://climatecrocks.com/2014/11/05/alex-adair-make-me-feel-better/comment-page-1/#comment-65817

  7. Gingerbaker Says:

    OK, Russell. Just because you are not being paid beans to carry the fossil fuel industry’s water doesn’t mean you can’t understand English. It doesn’t mean you have to ramble on incoherently.

    But I guess it doesn’t hurt.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Actually, Russell is paid a bit more than “beans” by Heartland, if not as much as the other Heartland Whores like Singer, Soon, and Idso, who draw down six figure “salaries”. Russell “auditioned” for Heartland for several years by slinging denier BS around the web until they started paying him to write “no strings attached” articles as an AGW denier—-$12,000 to start. He has received raises since then and is up to $36,000 for 2015 if I’m not mistaken. A quote from some of Russell’s gibberings about his Heartland employers follows:

      “My thanks to Heartland for making this possible, and for allowing me to write what I write without direction from them. If this kind of arrangement happens for me, who is to say that any donations received by skeptic climate scientists, paltry as they were, happened for them in the same manner? Donations given because whatever individual, organization, etc agreed with what the skeptics were saying, and that was that”. Russell Cook

      Although that contains a bit of the “incoherent rambling” that we all try to decipher in Russell’s writings, I think it clearly means that “Heartland gives $$$ to those who say what Heartland wants them to say”. Russell is certifiably insane if he really thinks that the rest of us don’t see the quid pro quo and intellectual whoring that he so vehemently denies.

      I will repeat——“Donations given because whatever individual, organization, etc agreed with what the skeptics were saying, and that was that”. NO, NO, NO, and NO, Russell—-that was most decidedly NOT “that was that” as you keep repeating in the hope that the lie will become truth.

      PS If one digs into Russell’s self-described history, one will find that Russell was unemployed, starving, and living in his mother’s basement when Heartland saw that he was writing things they agreed with and started to give him $$$$ to continue. I was moved to tears by his admission that he was so impoverished that his mother was selling off some of her belongings to support him.


      • “…. and on page 269 of Merchants of Doubt, there is a spelling error that invalidates….”

        “….living in his mother’s basement….”

        “D.o.g.” still can’t lift a finger to point to real items, so he is compelled to make things up. Can’t even get this year’s strings-free grant figure right even thought it was disclosed in plain English. And in case it is not yet abundantly obvious, he has yet to disprove a word I say anywhere about the sheer baselessness of the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic scientists’ accusation. Embarrassing isn’t it. Getting a bit boring from him, isn’t it?

        As for what you term “incoherent rambling”, I think even some of your various pals are disappointed that you are literally unable to dispute it with any evidence proving my words are directed and bought or that I was ‘auditioning’ for a job anywhere. No worries, you are in the same basic sinking boat as Dr Seitz. Time to bail out rather than shooting bigger holes in the bottom. 😉

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Russell keeps trying to turn attention back to his detractors and deflect it from himself. Sorry, Russell, but your refusal to discuss any science (like the Arctic sea ice that I’ve brought up to you so many times) has forced to make it all about YOU here, and your refusal to either go away or talk about something REAL (like science?) keeps the conversation going in circles.

          It IS interesting that the rest of us (most of whom now ignore you) have beaten your brains in in so many diverse ways but all you can do in reply is to come back to the same old incoherent talking points and say “prove it”. (I am reminded of the Lemurs in the Movie Madagascar singing “Move it, move it, move it. They were entertaining, you are NOT).

          I am “embarrassed”, and my “pals” are “disappointed”? LOL—that you can even think such thoughts is proof of the depths of your self-delusion, and putting them, here in a comment is foolish of you. Why do you not see that you are proving my arguments for me?

          And I’m making things up? OK—-correct my errors. Replay for us your history of “remuneration” from Heartland. Give us a year by year breakdown of how much they paid you and when, any bonuses, and what you are making for 2015. What will you be paid to speak at ICCC-10? Do you have any written agreement with Heartland that specifies how many articles/comments you must write for their pubs or put in other places? On what basis do they decide to send you $$$$. (Of course, all this $$$$ from Heartland has no strings attached—and the sky is not blue and the sun doesn’t rise each day)).

          I will repeat Russell’s own words:

          “My thanks to Heartland for making this possible, and for allowing me to write what I write without direction from them. If this kind of arrangement happens for me, who is to say that any donations received by skeptic climate scientists, paltry as they were, happened for them in the same manner? Donations given because whatever individual, organization, etc agreed with what the skeptics were saying, and that was that”.
          ….Russell Cook

          I think it clearly means that “Heartland gives $$$ to those who say what Heartland wants them to say”. Russell is certifiably insane if he really thinks that the rest of us don’t see the quid pro quo and intellectual whoring that he so vehemently denies.

  8. russellseitz Says:

    Boring, in’t he?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Russell Cook is beyond boring. The depths of his ignorance of science, his general hypocrisy, his fixation on his one little straw man argument, and the lengths he goes to in order to earn his whore’s dollar from Heartland and the fossil fuel interests all make him nauseating, and to some extent fascinating and hard to look away from—-like a car wreck or a horror movie.


    • Hardly. Dr Lindzen replied that as far as he knows, he last dealt with you was in 2004 when you were pitching something to use against Crichton. Remember that? Said the topic of consulting fees never came up. Your word against his, I suppose.

      Imagine if that specific topic had come up, you’d still be more than a decade out of date on your implication that the “2,500” is some kind of current figure… so is it not still plausible that there’s no logic to the idea that Dr Lindzen would keep the same rate set at a level first reported back in 1995?

      Is that talking point a line you feel confident sticking to?

  9. dumboldguy Says:

    Here’s an interesting piece. The Boston University board of trustees address the issue of divestment from fossil fuels.

    http://www.bu.edu/trustees/boardoftrustees/committees/acsri/investment-issues/fossil-fuel/fossil-fuel-issue-analysis/

    The statement actually references some climate change deniers—-both organizations and individuals—-and treats them as if they had any scientific credibility. The most interesting part of the piece is the comments, where we will find our favorite Heartland Whore Russell Cook and his fellow whores spouting the same old denier BS from the “talking points” list and getting themselves taken apart by people with real knowledge and brains.

    Russell is starting to turn up everywhere on the web, not just in the looney tune echo chambers of the deniers. Why does he do that? He knows NO science, has no training in matters of government and public policy, never talks about the economics of energy or human demographics of social systems. It’s not a moral crusade.

    Isn’t it obvious? He’s paid to do it.


  10. “… He’s paid to do it.”

    Prove it. We’re waiting. Doesn’t matter what you believe, only matters what you can prove.

    Doesn’t take a rocket scientist (nor does one need to be a climate scientist) to check the veracity and the origins of the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are in some kind of sinister conspiracy with industry where they instructed to lie, paid handsomely to do so, and know better about what they’re directed to say. Why, even a dumb old guy could undertake such an examination.

    “…Starting to turn up everywhere on the web …” A bit slow on the uptake, I’ve been turning up ever since 2008. Why do I do it? Rather than accept and swallow everything dumped on me, I undertake basic due diligence. That’s something you don’t advocate, it is?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      “Prove it”, says Russell yet again. Boooooring. (And “prove” what? Is it necessary to prove self-evident things? The sun comes up? The sky is blue?)

      He says this knowing full well that the deniers are indeed involved in “some kind of sinister conspiracy with industry where they (are) (SIC) instructed to lie, paid handsomely to do so, and know better about what they’re directed to say”. A so far somewhat successful conspiracy, just like the tobacco one. Too bad for the conspirators that Merchants of Doubt blew the whistle on this one so early and that the scientific evidence behind AGW is so irrefutable.

      Russell says “Why, even a dumb old guy could undertake such an examination”. Yes, Russell this DOG has sniffed (“examined”) a lot of fire metaphorical hydrants and trees (along with a lot of smarter younger dogs). Unlike you, I have the science training, intelligence, and honesty to understand the reality of AGW. Furthermore, am not such a loser that I was forced to whore for the fossil fuel interests to survive as you were.

      No “slow uptake at all with “…Starting to turn up everywhere on the web …”
      By that I meant that you were turning up lately in “real” places on the web where “real” discussions pertaining to AGW are occurring. As opposed to the bullshit-sharing sites like Breitbart, American Stinker, and Heartland where you “auditioned” for Heartland (and where all the ignorant and self deluded go to pump up each others egos and reinforce their shared ignorance). Of course you always look like a fool in the “real” world because you know no science and have gotten banned from some of the sites. If Crock was my site, you would have been gone long ago—-you have been repeating yourself for many months now, and “due diligence” and a regard for the integrity of Crock and the sanity of its visitors is something I do indeed “advocate”.

      “Why do I do it? Rather than accept and swallow everything dumped on me, I undertake basic due diligence”, says Russell. At the expense of being booooooring like him, I WILL AGAIN SAY that Russell does it because he is a lying POS, a whore, and without personal honor.

      JFC, Russell, go away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: