ARCTIC SEA ICE –Ralph’s Chill–

After a week of dominating the Pole, Ralph is starting to fade away towards Siberia, as Byoof finally starts to rebuild over the Beaufort Sea. Models suggest we are likely to see the low pressure on the Siberian side, with Byoof building on the Canadian side, which should suck some mild air north through Bering Strait. However a Pacific-to-Atlantic cross-polar-flow may be blocked by an extension of Byoof across the north Atlantic. This block will be an interesting complication, but is off in the fog of the future. Uncertainty is involved.

We can be a little less uncertain regarding the present. Of course, there are various glitches involved in our instrumentalizations, but it does seem Ralph cooled the air at the Pole.

Ralph C1 cmc_t2m_arctic_2

You may note that over Greenland there are temperatures below zero (-17°C), but that is because Greenland’s icecap is well over 10,000 feet up. (Icecap is 12,119 feet high and rising, at last report, at the center, but lowering at the edges.) In fact temperatures rarely get above freezing at that altitude, so far north, and there was quite a fuss a few years back when a brief thaw barely softened the icecap’s snow. The media made it sound like the entire icecap was melting, when in fact the softened snow refroze, and formed a crust. Study of the yearly layers of snow beneath suggest such thaws occur roughly once every fifty years, at that high altitude and high latitude.

The situation is entirely different when you drop down 10,000 feet to sea-level. There thaw is the norm, and freezes are the rarity. Here too the media has done a very bad job of stating what the norm of an arctic summer is. They tend to act as if a thaw is something to be alarmed about. Nope. It is quite normal.

In fact, though Ralph did manage to create some areas of sub-freezing temperatures, they were outweighed by the areas above freezing, and the mean of the entire area north of 80° north latitude never quite dipped below freezing.

DMI4 0629 meanT_2017

Ralph’s main fascination, to me at least, is that he suggests a change in patterns we are used to, and not that he can “stop” the thaw. There is always a thaw. Here is the DMI graph from 1958 (the earliest we have.)

DMI4 meanT_1958

This 1958 graph is actually warmer than anything we have seen in recent summers, for the red line of actual temperatures gets above the green line of “average”. Recent summers have seen the red line below normal. But never, in the height of summer, does the red line sink below the blue line which represents freezing. There is always a thaw.

I actually found this surprising, when I first began to look at the history of the arctic. I thought for sure we could find at least one summer where it was especially cold, and there was no thaw, but I have yet to see a record of such a summer. I am starting to think it may have thawed during the summer even back during the height of the last ice age. The sun is simply too powerful to ignore, when it shines 24 hours a day, day after day after day.

Once you accept the thaw as a yearly event it is hard to get all bent out of shape by signs of melting sea-ice. In fact I feel like a person “in the know”, who can chuckle at the rubes who get excited by signs of slush. But the truth of the matter is that I was once just such a rube.

Now that I’m wiser my appreciation of men who crossed the sea-ice during the summer, back before rescue was possible with helicopters sent from massive icebreakers, has greatly increased. The more comfortable air temperatures get, the more treacherous the ice gets.  The scientists Marc Cornelissen and Philip de Roo were lost in 2015 because the air temperatures were so warm they apparently were skiing in their long underware, and fell through thin ice into water that can kill you in five minutes.

Back in the days of the Cold War, to avoid the thinner and more treacherous sea-ice, both Americans and Russians used to seek out the thicker bergs that calved off the north of Greenland and Ellesmere Island. These flat bergs were over 100 feet thick, but, because 9/10 of an iceberg is under water, they hardly stuck up at all above the other ice, and were hard to locate. Once discovered they were invaluable, because airplanes could be landed on them, and bases built upon them, and the Americans and Russians could busily spy on each other while pretending to only be interested in scientific experiments. However, at the height of summer, even these high points on the arctic seascape could be afflicted by the problems of slush. I suppose that, because they were so flat, the water didn’t run off to the lower ice ten feet below these “highlands”. In any case, while reading about life on T-3 (also called “Fletcher’s Ice Island”) I recall raising an eyebrow when one one man casually mentioned he wore hip waders, to get through the slush.

Thaw is the norm in the north.  We are lucky to have a camera, O-buoy 14, which drifted into Parry Channel last autumn.

Parry Channel Map_indicating_Parry_Channel

Parry Channel has great significance in Climate Science, because it is in the shape of a hockey stick, and we all know how hockey sticks cause climate scientists to tingle and spout adithering verbosity.  However the channel is annoying to those who want to say current melting is “unprecedented”, for it is named after William Parry, who back in 1819 sailed a wooden, non-motorized ship along the entire “shaft” and into the “blade” of the above hockey stick, and, after spending a winter stuck in the ice, sailed back east the following summer. In comparison, when the “Northabout” sailed the Northwest Passage last summer, it sneaked through a southern route and never got as far north as Parry Channel.

It is amazing to consider the guts of the fellows who sailed the arctic back then, for they seemed to always get stuck and spend winters in the ice. The next spring they had to wait and wait and wait for the ice to melt. O-buoy 14 is giving us a glimpse of what they saw, as the sun shone all day, day after day. The three pictures below are from June 23, 25, and 29, and show us softening snow, slush (with polar bear tracks), and melt-water pools.

Obuoy 14 0623 webcam

Obuoy 14 0625 webcam

Obuoy 14 0629C webcam

Now, before you get too excited by melt-water pools, please remember the lesson we were taught by “Lake North Pole” back in 2013. A melt-water pool does not mean the ice is breaking up; it can drain away in 48 hours, and the ice will remain.  (Left July 26; right July 28.)




Hopefully we will see the ice break up. The long-ago sailors hoped to see the same thing. The danger was, it didn’t always happen. The most tragic case involved the Franklin Expedition of 1845-1846. The waters that had been more open in the time of Parry were less open, and likely the expedition’s provisions were also tainted by lead-poisoning. It was crucial they escape after the first winter, but seemingly the ice didn’t melt enough the second summer, though the survivors apparently attempted to escape to the south.

It seems to me that the ships of that time, though better equipped than Parry’s, were to some degree tricked by dreaded “Climate Change”. In the period 1816-1817 there were reports of whalers sailing up through Fram Strait along the east coast of Greenland, and over the top, and down through Nares Strait and into Baffin Bay on the west coast of Greenland. This was no longer possible in 1845, and Parry’s route was increasingly difficult. The expedition of HMS Investigator, entering the same area Parry explored but from the west, became trapped in the ice in 1850, and waited through two winters on increasingly shrunken rations, hoping the ice would melt, but it didn’t. They faced the same doom as Franklin’s crew.

In 1853 an expedition was sent to look for both Franklin’s ships and HSM Investigator. Four of five ships were trapped in the ice and abandoned. Three of the abandoned ships were lost. The fourth ship was abandoned but not lost, and makes for a very cool story. This ship was HSM Resolute.

The Resolute managed to copy Parry’s route, entering Parry Channel from the east in 1852, and wintering to the west and north of where O-buoy 14 now sits, not far from where Parry wintered, but the next summer they couldn’t escape as Parry escaped, though they did find and rescue the crew of HSM Investigator. Then the entire bunch was trapped by the September refreeze of 1853, and the captain prepared to endure another winter, which they successfully did. However as the sun rose the following spring they received orders to abandon their ship, and travel over the ice to other ships. Under protest, the captain obeyed, taking great care to prepare the ship before he left. They sailed back to England in 1854.

Then, unmanned, the  Resolute traveled east through Parry Channel during the summers of 1854 and 1855, and was boarded by American whalers up at the top of Baffin Bay in September, 1855. Because we Americans are such gosh-darn nice people, we gave the ship back to the English, and it was back in England in 1856.

Ralph C2 300px-HMS_Resolute_cropped

Apparently America’s sweetness and light didn’t impress the British much, for they put textile mills and cotton before freedom for slaves, and supported the wrong side during our Civil War. But later, after the relatively-good guys won our Civil War, the British got over it. When the Resolute was decommissioned in 1876 they took some of the less rotted timbers and made a desk, which was given to our President, Rutherford Hayes, in 1880.

Consequently no American president could sit at such a desk, in his right mind, and say the melt of arctic sea-ice was “unprecedented”, unless they were amazingly ignorant, and were created as a sort of divine pay-back to England, for abolishing slavery throughout their empire in 1833, but supporting America’s slave-states in 1861. (Karma’s pay-backs can be bizarre.) (Such an impossible person would send back to Britain, if not the actual desk, a bronze bust of Winston Churchill given to the USA by the English. Could any man sit at a desk made of timbers of the Resolute and be so crass?)

Ralph C3 Barack_Obama_sitting_at_the_Resolute_desk_2009.jpg

I suppose this may show I just don’t understand politics. Politicians like to think they are ahead of the facts, but to me it seems they are always behind. Just as the British Navy was losing ships left and right, because they were basing their intelligence on an outdated idea that suggested sea-ice in 1845 was like it was in Parry’s time, the intelligence of American leaders who misled and mislead the American voters was and is sadly outdated. However I don’t think the English admiralty promoted arctic exploration knowing their intelligence was wrong. Some American leaders are well aware Global Warming is based on faulty intelligence.

It takes an extraordinary American buffoon to think it is intelligent, to be unintelligent on purpose.

The simple fact of the matter is that the current thaw in the arctic is neither greater nor less than thaws of the historical past, and anyone who says otherwise either hasn’t researched the past, or thinks it is intelligent to be unintelligent.

Parry Channel is the proof.


If I have time I’ll stick the DMI maps of Ralph’s recent rise and current fall, as a footnote and update to this post.


27 thoughts on “ARCTIC SEA ICE –Ralph’s Chill–

  1. Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    Why call storms by various names? Caleb has a fine solution to call all low pressure at the pole Ralph and it seems Ralph is ‘unprecedented’ in his persistence these past Arctic summers.

    A really enjoyable post with a wonderful story of early arctic expeditions and presidential desks!!!

  2. When I read the part about someone being so crass as to send Winnie’s bust away, I wondered why you didn’t have the picture of him with his feet on the desk while talking on the phone.

    I knew the desk came from the Resolute, but I never knew the story OF the Resolute. Thanks for the history lesson.

    • The picture of the fool with his feet on the desk was definitely crass, but I prefer the picture I used, for it makes the fool look so small and the desk look so big.

      The stories of the original arctic explorers are full of things that inspire me, and make insurance adjusters cringe. I hope to share other tales at some point. Glad you enjoyed this snippet of history.

  3. At the end of the 19th century the planet had just emerged from the LIA. Do you want to argue that the ice almost vanished during summer then too?

      • I think he wants to be my disciple. Why else would he keep dropping by?

        A poem:

        “Old Sty is as rude as
        A fellow named Judas.”

    • No I do not want to argue, Sty, especially with you. Debate is an exercise in futility with you.

      You have made it quite clear in the past that the intentionally wrong graph, which you like to quote as your gospel, (which shows Medieval Warm Period ice-levels as higher than modern levels), is your guru. Your faith is rock solid. Who am I to question another’s faith?

      My faith is different. I like to track where arctic explorers sailed, and make an educated guess about what the sea-ice conditions were like. If men in wooden ships, powered only by sail, had the audacity to sail where your almighty graph suggests there was solid ice, I am a heretic, for I call your gospel hogwash.

      I am well aware this makes me an infidel in your book. So be it.

      If there is even a chink in the armor of your faith, you should turn your question around and ask this: “At end of the 18th century the planet had just emerged from the LIA. Do you wish to argue that Parry did not sail where Parry sailed?”

      Sadly I have seen little sign there is a chink in your armor. You do not visit this site to add to our knowledge of sea-ice, but rather to deride our knowledge, and genuflect to your almighty graph. Over and over I have given you examples from history that question the veracity of your holy graph, and I have supplied you with sources that would allow you to deepen your knowledge of arctic history. As far as I can see I have been about as effective as a man taking on a Sherman tank with a peashooter. I can’t make a dent in your obtuse psyche.

      All you seem to want to do is to insult my intelligence, and the intelligence of other history-lovers who frequent this obscure site, by stating history is hogwash, and not a proxy, whereas your almighty graph uses some mysterious proxy that trumps history.

      OK. If that was your intent, you can consider your job is done. You have offered your gospel to the infidel. What more can you do? Now will you please go away and leave us infidel in peace?

      • Arctic history is fascinating and a valued source of data – I believe that Parry sailed where he said he did. I’m also sure he did not sail into the middle of the Arctic basin and took comprehensive sea ice thickness measurements. His data covers a small area both in time and in space. History IS a proxy but it’s very patchy in isolation. Modelling of past climate can use physical laws (conservation of mass, energy etc.) together with proxies, temperature records etc. to come up with an estimate of past ice volume. If the energy to melt the ice was not present, it’s reasonable to assume that the ice didn’t melt, since the process takes decades even in a rapidly warming climate. The models cannot recreate seasonal or yearly patterns of ice extent but I’m very much convinced they can get the decadal trends right.

      • You’re back? Sigh. You are either some sort of sadist, or a masochist, or maybe both. However, as I am about to go to church I will attempt to be civil, although I will confess I don’t feel like it. (Confession is good.)

        Your comment starts out saying you value history, but then you immediately devalue it. Then you follow by puffing up the value of models. In the end we are where we always are: History has been demoted to the status of a glitch, and a local glitch at that, whereas models are high and mighty on an alter of irrefutable honor.

        I hate to be the one to tell you this, but models are not reality. What’s more, they can be bunkum. In the hands of a person highly skilled at creating them, a model is a marionette, attempting to look like reality (but sometimes getting tangled up in its own strings). In the case of a highly skilled person who is corrupt and able to be bribed by self-serving politicians, (and such people do exist), the marionette isn’t even attempting to look like reality.

        I suppose you are either clasping your heart and reeling around the room in horror as I insult your almighty models, or else looking at my words with withering suspicion and seeing me as paranoid. Sorry, but I’ve told you the Truth. In the world of computers the process of creating convincing but nonsensical results is called GIGO, but it goes farther back into human history, to the first caveman con artist.

        The IPCC reports show this process occurring, first by using and then basically erasing the work of Herbert Lamb, and then by glorifying and then quietly erasing the hockey stick graph of Michael Mann.

        The work of Herbert Lamb was founded on history derived from careful study of evidence worldwide, and did not rely on models. It produced a graph with a very definite and large MWP. Some of the evidence he used was:

        1.) The northern limit of vineyards with a long history of cultivation lay some 300-500 km north of the limit of commercial vineyards in the 20thC.

        2.) In many parts of England there are traces of medieval tillage far above anything attempted in the present century, even in wartime: up to 350 m above sea level on Dartmoor and 320 m in Northumberland.

        3.) The tree line and upper limits of various crops on the hills of Central Europe were higher than today.

        4.)Mining operations at high levels in the Alps which had long been abandoned were reopened, and water supply ducts were built to take water from points which were subsequently overrun by glaciers and are in some cases still under ice.

        5.) In Central Norway the area of farming spread 100-200m up valleys and hillsides from 800 – 1000 AD, only to retreat just as decisively after 1300 AD.

        6.) The Viking colonies in W and SW Greenland were able to bury their dead sheep in soil that has since been permanently frozen.

        7.) It was also a warm period generally from N Mexico to N Canada, where forest remnants between 25 and 100 km north of the present limit have been found, radio carbon dated between 880 and 1140 AD.

        (This historical evidence has been increased since Lamb passed away.)

        Here is Lamb’s graph, with the impressive MWP, that was included in the 1990 IPPC report.

        It is my opinion Lamb’s graph didn’t support the “cause”, which was to prove man was causing Global Warming, and that nations needed to hand over power to the UN so they could “fix” things. Therefore Lamb’s graph was disappeared, along with his lifetime’s worth of work.

        However history does not disappear. We may all attempt to rewrite the past, but if we go too far in our efforts, (perhaps donning rose colored glasses), evidence reappears to bite us.

        What this site attempts to do is vindicate honorable scientists like Lamb, by supplying teeth to history.

        Like it or lump it.

  4. Being just a troll, it could not comprehend Caleb’s reference to even the ice age glaciation periods, and potential summer melt. “Solar system Physics”.

      • Take heart, Caleb! Getting trolled means you’re viewed as a threat to the alarmist meme, and that is proud company. ‘Meme-worthy’ I call it. I know it’s a pain, and wastes your time, but at least you know you’re getting to them.

        On a more positive note, I love the historical view you provide. I wish there was a book that compiled all the facts from historical documents over the last 400 years or so that would document the cycles of warming and cooling, vs. the ‘flat blade of the hockey stick’ nonsense.

      • If I find time I’ll write that book. The adventures of those explorers are great reading, and would be a hook to any avid reader. The evidence of open waters wouldn’t have to be nagging and in-your-face, but could be mentioned as an aside.

        Here’s a cool event from Nansen’s adventure.

        He hoped to drift the Fram across the pole, but when it became evident the Fram was going to drift well south of the Pole he left the safety of the ship and set off on foot with another man. They had two sleds and two small boats they dragged along. After getting farther north than any other man ever had gotten, the drift of the ice was too much, and they headed back south, crossing the ice in sleds and the leads of open water in the little boats.

        At one point, after crossing a lead, a moment’s carelessness resulted in near disaster. The two boats were not dragged up on the lead’s icy shore enough, and began drifting away.

        Nansen instantly saw they were dead without the boats, so he dove into the ice water, swam to the boats, climbed aboard one, and paddled them back. What you have to understand is the salt water was below the freezing point of fresh water. Such cold can make hands useless in a couple minutes, and kill a man in five. Nansen must have swum fast and in complete desperation.

        A day in the life of an arctic explorer.

        Back in Norway Nansen was asked if he planned any further trips in the arctic, and he apparently replied, “Absolutely not.” Once was enough.

  5. Good points, Taylor. “Judge me by my enemies”!
    A lot of data is stored on the computers of contributors to sceptic websites, for instance, and a lot of leads. Pity we cannot trust Sty with it (tried that).

    • The more I muse about it, the more I like the idea of a book about arctic explorers, going all the way back to the Vikings.

      I also could write a book, “Trolls I have known.”

      Back around 2005 Brett Anderson ran a site at Accuweather where Global Warming was hotly debated. For around 2 years Brett never had time to moderate it, and I was well educated there about how to debate.

      The site was sometimes completely out of hand and much like a bar-room brawl, yet somehow we were able to retain just enough civil dignity to have hilarious battles. Looking back, I think we all were trolls, but civil trolls. I remember there was one Alarmist who called himself “Brookline Tom” who I actually got to like, even though, like Sty, he never conceded anything.

      Then Brett started moderating his site and it swiftly lost its charm, shrinking into an echo chamber of parrots. Fortunately that was when Anthony Watts started up WUWT.

      I suppose I put up with Sty because, even though I prefer people who like to research the same stuff I do, I don’t want this site to be an echo chamber of parrots. I do cut Sty off when he is too great a distraction (he really needs to start his own site) but occasionally he provides my old wits with a good foil. When my Dad passed age eighty he said that the brain was like other parts of the body: “If you don’t use it you lose it.”

    • Brett,

      I’ve been thinking about your comment, “A lot of data is stored on the computers of contributors to skeptic websites, for instance, and a lot of leads.”

      You may have inspired a new post, about little guys taking on Big Authority.

      Forgive my patriotic hoopla, but once the USA was the little guy, and the English Empire was the Big. The English Navy had 600 ships, and the USA had 8. It would seem a bad idea to declare war with England, but President Madison did so, in June, 1812.

      Not the smartest move. Madison had to flee and Washington DC got burned down. But one interesting element of that war involves the fact that by late 1816 English markets were running short of fish, because English fishermen were afraid to go out to fish, because of blasted Americans.

      Huh? How could this happen? The English had 600 ships and the Americans 8.

      It turned out that America had a tiny Navy, but a huge number of excellent sailors. Only England had more merchant ships at sea. What the Americans then did was turn their trading vessels into speedy “privateers”.

      Privateers only had 8-20 cannons, and would never pick a fight with a big English ship, but they could usually outrun the big English ships. They followed no admiral; each was independent, and for profit, for they zipped in and plundered the English shipping. It was such a good business that lots of American merchantmen took to being privateers (basically pirates). This would have been OK for Britannia if there were only fifty or a hundred, but as I recall they numbered something like 1800 by the end of the war. They were a very real reason that war ended up as basically ” a draw “, and the USA didn’t get its nose rubbed in the mud.

      What’s my point? Well, substitute “small, independent websites” for the word “privateers”. Catch my drift?

      Tuesday is a big American holiday, Independence Day, and, if I don’t blow my nose off, setting off fireworks, I may take the above idea and run with it: “Little guys can take on Big Authority.” If I do, I’ll hope I don’t forget to give credit where credit is due: It was your innocuous comment that started this whole line of thought.

      • Britain and a few allies were actually in the process of ridding the world of yet another aspiring megalomaniac would-be dictator. Madison made some bad mistakes. We had been saving the free world since about 1798, and had better things to worry about than him. !816, the first year of peace, was more interesting as a savagely-frigid year…..As an ex-fisherman, I know about cold at sea, even in temperate climes. Harvests were also a bigger problem than yankees at that time.
        Bermuda on the other hand, such a beautiful spot. Glad we developed sport as a substitute for war, but then again, I could be biased. Always had a soft spot for the Patriots, hard-headed cusses like us…..

      • One of Madison’s mistakes was to assume Canadians would be glad to join the USA. We Americans can be incredibly vain, when it comes to assuming others think we are so wonderful that they will want to join us.

        Canada taught us a lesson, fighting for their survival, but we were also fighting for our survival. It’s sort of funny how an affair that was so important over here is sort of a footnote in European History, though of course Europe was fighting for its own survival against the amazing vanity of Napoleon.

        War seems to sometimes involve megalomaniacs taking on megalomaniacs. Vanity goes berserk. I mean, what sane man thinks he can sink an entire battleship? (A British frogman.)

        What sane man takes a privateer with 3 guns against a ship with 14? (The American ship Paul Jones against the British ship Hassan, which surrendered without a shot being fired, in 1812.) (The Paul Jones had 14 logs painted black to look like guns, and a larger crew which was swarming up in the rigging looking like Marines.) (Amazing bluff.)

        War is hell, especially when woman and children suffer, but there is something about the vain audacity of the men who dare do amazing deeds that attracts me.

        In terms of weather, how about Napoleon’s huge army running into the Russian Winter? Yikes! What a hideous debacle! Napoleon was like a millionaire leaving a poker game without his shirt.

      • Check out Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph. Any MWP or LIA seen? That graph was on the cover of the IPCC report.

        They tried. They didn’t get away with it.

    • I don’t see how you could possibly draw that conclusion, Sty. Once again you haven’t been listening.

      Think back. Don’t you recall questioning my sources when I mentioned the whalers sailing up to 84 degrees north and around the top of Greenland east to west? That was in 1816-1817. A huge mass of ice was flushed south through Fram Strait, with burgs down to 40 degrees north and even grounding on the coast of Ireland. Summer sea-ice extent must have been greatly reduced to the far north.

      This likely exposes a serious flaw in your model, which you assume can be trusted to hindcast the past volume-levels of ice in the arctic. The problem is that ice doesn’t stay in the arctic. 1816-1817 may have been an extreme event, but the low sea-ice extent of 2007 was similar, in that lots of ice was flushed south through Fram Strait.

      You have ventured the opinion that the “volume” of arctic ice is steadily shrinking, even if “extents” haven’t dropped. Then you produce PIOMAS data. However it differs from DMI data. Why? Because, to be polite, attempting to measure the volume of arctic sea-ice is “problematic”. To be less polite, it is a wild ass guess. It may be an extremely meticulous wild ass guess, but it is still a wild ass guess, with huge error bars. And this is in the present tense, with all our amazing satellite data and computer abilities. Once you go back in time thirty years the wild ass gets wilder and wilder and bigger and bigger until it is basically a wild brontosaurus guess.

      Sorry, I have no faith in your guru.

      • (Moderator has deleted a paragraph defending Mann, and off-shoots of his graph, and the the IPCC idea current warming excceeds MWP. Sty already has made his faith quite plain.)

        (Moderator has deleted a paragraph expressing Sty’s surprise whalers sailed north of Greenland in 1816-1817, and asking for links. Already have been there and done that with Sty, twice. Three strikes. You’re out.)

        (Moderator leaves this wonderful example of Sty’s blind faith:) PIOMAS and CryoSat satellite measurements of the ice volume match quite well, so it is very far from being a “wild ass guess” as you called it. I’m not familiar with the DMI model or how well validated it is, so I do not follow it. (Groan.)

        (Moderator leaves Sty’s justifying conclusion:) Even past climate has to adhere to the laws of physics so if the warmth needed to melt the ice was not available for a sufficient period (years to decades), the ice probably didn’t melt. I don’t think the reconstructed temperatures show such a temperature peak at the end of the LIA.

        (Moderator realizes Sty failed to read this site’s host’s above comment that explains ice does not need to be melted in the Arctic, but can be flushed south and melted in the Atlantic, (likely cooling temperatures, whether actual or “reconstructed”). Because it is rude to ignore the kindly host of this site, when he is so patient and kind and painstakingly explains things, Sty is banned from commenting for 48 hours.)

      • Caleb,

        Your historical knowledge is frankly amazing. I have always looked up to you with an amazing sense of authority, because you have delved into your subject material as an avocation, for the love of it, rather than as a grant seeking hired gun. You simply take your subject material, research it independently, and run with it, regardless of where it leads you.

        To us who are curious, but less informed, many thanks for the tons of fascinating information that you regularly provide. If it takes a troll to prompt you to provide that information, then more power to him!


      • Thanks, Andy. And you are right, I do it because I love it. But also because schools are failing to teach the really cool stuff, so I feel a sort of urgency to share.

  6. Indeed, I guess it must all melt within a few years, from below if not above in the Atlantic. Just because trolls may even have eyes, doesn’t mean they can see. I had to try once to put truth out on a publicly-owned blog here in NZ, where the snowflakes got in charge. They caused its destruction because the mods would not moderate their own kind. I haven’t finished with them yet, because they are partisan, read ‘resistance’, public employees. You don’t have such on your own, I am sorry to say.
    Wooden ships can last and last. Be funny if the Presidential desk/footstool was once part of our ‘wooden walls’ in the Atlantic. Fair enough, we probably burnt a previous one, naughty, naughty!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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