THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Max,
“At that long-term rate it will take around 30 decades (or 300 years) for the ice to disappear completely”
That’s not what the NSIDC are saying. It might take that long for the ice to disappear completely in June, which is the only month you are quoting, but even so I’d like to see you produce a similar graph, and the accompanying dialogue, to mine which shows sea ice area figures in some recognisable units such as square miles or sq kilometers first.
When the NSIDC guys claim that sea ice could be gone in the next twenty odd years they don’t mean completely gone throughout the year or even just in June. They are referring to the sea-ice minimum, which could drop to zero, and which I’m sure you already knew occurs three months later.
So a nice try at a quick sleight of hand! I was a bit slow in spotting that, I must admit.
You’ve really got learn to be a little more patient. The last figure we have for the sea ice mininum was from Sept 2007, which as you correctly say was nine months ago, and which also shows you can get some calculations right when you want to :-). We’ll all just have to wait another three months to see what the figure will be for 2008.
Brute,
Have you made any more progress in finding any examples of conventional ships that have sailed the NW passage on their own?
Bob_FJ,
I notice that you’ve had to fall back on to the tactic of questioning just how sea ice is defined. I agree that any definition is somewhat arbitrary. Whatever is agreed upon just has to be maintained.
And also you’ve said that because we don’t have any pre-satellite data before 1979, therefore we know nothing.
But there are records. Maybe you’d like to read up on the Franklin expedition of the 19th century to know just how solid the Arctic sea ice then was, even in summer. If the expedition were sailing in the same sea ice conditions of 2007, they would most likely have made it through to the Pacific and would also have returned to tell the tale.
I’ve posted a new article which compares last summer’s High Court action which identified inaccuracy’s in Al Gores’ An Inconvenient Truth with the findings of Ofcom’s recently published report on The Great Global Warming Swindle here.
There is also an article about the Ofcom report at Alex Lockwood’s blog which mentions the NS Continuation thread in a way that I suspect is not intended to be flattering.
Here we go…..global welfare with the US, UK and other successful western nations paying the bills.
UN Warming Program Draws Fire
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/general/2008/0711ball.htm
THE EU’S CARBON TRADING SCHEME
Killing Jobs to Save the Climate
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,566441,00.html
C/O Greenie Watch….
COMPLAINTS TO OFCOM
Heh! Scottish blogger Neil Craig sent the following letter to British regulator Ofcom as a comment on their waffling about “balance” in response to the “Swindle” film. I doubt that Neil will get a reply
Dear Sir,
Following your judgement that the Global Warming Swindle failed to adhere to your rules about impartiality & particularly in line with section 5.12 “an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes” I wish to follow up my complaint of Sunday, to which astonishingly you have made no response, with the following from the last 17 hours.
Complaint 1 – Channel 4 news 7.30 – Though the programme accused Mugabe’s followers of violence & torture & a commentator from the opposing side was interviewed nobody from the government side was.
Complaint 2 – BBC 10 O’CLOCK NEWS – Reporting the Warming Swindle programme the BBC started by mentioning that the programme had not interviewed the IPCC or Sir David King & only near the end mentioned that Ofcom had found the scientific parts of the programme (1-4 of 5) accurate. They interviewed one alarmist spokesman (from the Royal Society) but not anybody on the other side. In particular Professor Singer who was criticised for saying King said something which Hansard also says he said should have been allowed to reply. This is particularly outrageous since this is the very activity that they are reporting that has been censured by you.
Complaint 3 – BBC 10 O’CLOCK NEWS – – Reported on Zimbabwe, accusing Mugabe of murder & interviewing an MDC spokesman but not a ZANU one.
Complaint 4 – SCOTTISH NEWS BBC 1 10.30 – Reporting on a proposed new windfarm they interviewed Alex Salmond who said, untruthfully, that this windfarm “could light up the city of Glasgow”. In fact with perfect conditions & 100% capacity, instead of the 27% average capacity it could light up all the houses, so long as none of them had 2 bar electric fires or equivalent which only leaves the 2/3rds of energy used outside the home. No questioning of this claim was allowed. BBC then interviewed an Airtricity spokesman. Again no attempt to produce a “wide range” of views or even 1 sceptic was allowed.
Complaint 4 – NEWSNIGHT BBC 2 10.30 – Reporting on Zimbabwe a US state Dept spokesperson alone was interviewed. The US, of course, voted for sanctions against Zimbabwe on the ground that it was a threat to regional peace. No spokesman from either Russia or China, who voted down that resolution were interviewed. It is difficult to claim that the views of 2 of the 5 Security Council leaders are not “significant”.
Complaint 5 – Newsnight BB” 2 10.30 – Reported on the capture of Radovan Karadzic claiming him as responsible for the “7,500 people who died at Srebrenica”. This was both unbalanced & a misrepresentation of the facts since the only undisputed massacre there is of at least 3,800 Serb men, women & children (but mainly women & children since the men were in the army) in surrounding villages by Moslem forces.
Complaint 6 – Tuesday 22nd BBC Radio Scotland 7.30 on – Reporting on the capture of Karadzic the BBC put out nearly a dozen soundbites/interviews all with people claiming him guilty of crimes. Obviously if this was ever intended to be a real trial the BBC would not have considered acting in such a prejudicial manner but even though it is merely to be a propaganda show trial they are still in breach of their duty that “wide range of significant views must be included” which obviously included innocence.
Complaint 7 – CLASSIC FM 10 AM – Interviewed Paddy Ashdown, a well known supporter of the openly genocidal Bosnian Moslem leader & former SS auxiliary whose coup prevented Karadzic performing his job as President, under the rotating presidency of Bosnia & Hercegovina. No attempt at balance by interviewing anybody from the other side.
I note that in a 16 hour period, watching/listening to only 1 channel at a time I have found 7 instances which clearly & indubitably breach the guidelines as you have interpreted them. It must be assumed that over a full day & all channels it must be at least double that & over a year you are thus going to have to issue 5,000 critical reports. You have my felicitations in that process since it is clear this will be an arduous task.
Of course if Ofcom’s job was not the one it claims but merely to ensure that the broadcast media continue to be a fascist propaganda arm of government willing to tell absolutely any lie & distort any news in a racist &/or unscientific way your job would be much easier.
I look forward to your response & action this day.
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “We’ll all just have to wait another three months to see what the figure will be for [September] 2008.”
Right.
Until then, we will have to rely on comparisons for other months, which show an average 3.4% decline per decade in the Arctic and continued growth in the Antarctic, for a total long-term net growth of polar sea ice, which would tell us (happily) that there will be no “positive feedback” from sea ice reduction “albedo” changes (as projected by IPCC), but rather a slight negative feedback.
Isn’t that great news, Peter?
I’m sure we can all be happy that the dire predictions of IPCC (and other more hysterical alarmists) are unfounded, when it comes to “positive feedback” from sea ice reduction albedo changes.
Aren’t you just thrilled about this good news? I am.
Regards,
Max
Robin 696 & 722
Concerning the much reduced increase in emissions in the USA, compared with other countries, (apart possibly from coal-crazy, aluminium smelting Australia), listed thus:
Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%;
Emissions from countries that ratified the protocol increased 21.1%;
Emissions from non-ratifiers of the protocol increased 10.0%;
Emissions from the US (a non-ratifier) increased 6.6%;
Emissions from the US increased less than 75% of ratifying countries.
I was very surprised, to see this for the USA, but would like to suggest that some part of it is that countries like Germany, UK and Japan have for many years had much more efficient usage of petroleum products, principally in cars. The scope for further improvement there is not that great, whereas there has been a move away from gas guzzlers in the USA. (hence the recent demise of Ford and GM in The States)
I was also shocked to see the poor performance in the Kyoto rats! Why is this not out there in the news? Is it true? I don’t see the source!
However, if you look at the per capita usage of fossil fuels in the USA, (and Australia), it aint so good!
Within the link in Brute’s 727 is the following table which apparently shows that USA is coming off a very high base per capita, and that whilst 6% reduction in growth is certainly good progress, they need to reduce more of the order of 50% (over some moving relative time-frame) to look good in a per capita sense.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/socecon/envronmt/emissions.gif
I did a post somewhere a while back comparing oil usage in the USA compared with the ROW, and it is shocking! I’ll relocate it maybe.
BTW, Brute, stop gnashing your teeth, this only concerns me WRT “Peak Oil”. (however that might be defined)
Max,
I can see why you seem very happy to stick with the Arctic sea ice figures for June. They show a loss of just over 3% loss per decade:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Jun/N_200706_plot.png
I can see why you haven’t chosen July. You’d be less happy. The loss of ice per decade for July is 6.2% :
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Jul/N_200707_plot.png
You’d be even less happy with August. The loss of sea ice for August is 8.4% per decade:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Aug/N_200708_plot.png
And by the time we reach the time of the minimum sea -ice in early September the loss of sea ice per decade works out to be 10% per decade as I’ve already showed.
So, again, nice try at being selective with your choice of data, but let’s have the complete story please.
Maybe you should take a look at what the NSIDC are saying about Antarctica. Surely that can’t be so bad.
How about this link?
http://nsidc.org/pubs/notes/63/Notes_63_web.pdf
Oh No! “Antarctic Sea Ice Disintegration Underscores a Warming World”.
Yes, it would be nice to have some good news or at least less ‘not so good’ news. I’m tempted to compare you with an ostrich, which has been reported to bury its head in the sand, presumably to keep out the bad news, at the first sign of danger. But, to be fair to the ostrich species, they are not that stupid, and it’s really just a myth.
Pete, 725,
You wrote in part:
I’m just checking, but is that intended to be a response to my 715 (repeated below)?
I’ve added numbers to each of the points thus [#] to make it easier to separate the issues and for you to make more considered responses:
I’m always happy to help you with your education
Bob_FJ,
I seem to remember someone quoting me a figure of 20,000 brain cells lost per pint of beer consumed. I’d say that wine must have a similar shrinkage effect on the brain. I’m happy to cite that well known climate sceptic newspaper the UK Daily Mail in support:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-452300/Seven-pints-beer-shrinks-brain.html
I’m touched that you should be so concerned about my education but would I suggest that, for you, charity should begin at home. To help in your own education, I’d suggest that you should have a good read of the Realclimate website and then go easy on that Chablis or Merlot, that you are so fond of, so that you don’t forget it all afterwards.
Bob,
No gnashing of teeth here; per capita energy use is an absolute indicator of economic prosperity; (there is nothing shameful, undesirable or unattractive about being successful and wealthy). I’ve never been offered a job by a poor man and I make no apologies for my country being wealthy and prosperous. I believe you will find that the United States provides per capita the greatest amount of largesse (private donations) than any other country in the world. That’s what freedom and liberty is all about.
Without getting too academic, I believe that JZ Smith demonstrated in previous posts that the United States PRODUCES more per capita than other nations, which is a testimony to the superiority of the American/Western capitalist system of government/economy. The standard of living is higher, (I believe this has been disputed by Mr. Martin), but is quite evident considering the number of citizens from foreign countries emigrating from East to West. Guilt and self loathing is a character trait of weakness and envy, which seems to be the predominate mindset of many people of Marxist/Socialist/Collective ideology.
People who adhere to the Collectivist principle are opposed to individual property rights and mistakenly believe that “everything belongs to everyone”. We’ve all seen how well that worked in the former Soviet Union and Communist China. Both of these societies are moving slowly toward capitalist system more closely aligned to that of the (former economic principles) of the United States. Human nature dictates that there will always be someone who desires something better for himself and his family than the status quo and it’s a damn good thing lest human progress would grind to a halt. There is an interesting case study of the realities of German re-unification after the fall of the Soviet Union. If I can find the title of the book I’ll pass it along. West Germany was far more advanced than their counterparts in the East and after re-unification the Eastern mindset simply could not keep pace. The spirit of competition was beaten out of the generation of East Germans and progress had essentially stopped. The wounds are deep and the resentment is strong as the more advanced West Germany must play nursemaid to their eastern brethren.
Class envy and unfounded “victim hood” are basic tactics exploited by those of the Left. They preach to their flocks that they could have all of their needs met, (by government) if only those successful, hard working, responsible people didn’t stymie their efforts. (See: National Socialism in Germany circa 1930’s) a clever ploy to wrest control from the people.
A perfect example is the Leftist agenda begun by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson in the mid 1960’s and carried on to this day to “eradicate poverty”. It hasn’t worked and the policies have only exasperated the plight of the poor, yet these very same people continue to vote for the same people whose policies have kept them poor and downtrodden. Economic independence is the ladder out of poverty and economic slavery for individuals and nations…..
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; TEACH a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life. Too many people are expecting government to give them fish as opposed to going out and catching, (earning), their own.
Just as with the global warming confidence scheme; there’s one born every minute.
The standard of living is higher, (I believe this has been disputed by Mr. Martin)
This wouldn’t be your first incorrect belief!
Last night, BBC TV launched a two part “eco-drama” about the oil industry. And guess what? The oil industry executives (especially the Americans) were thoroughly bad people who didn’t give a damn about the damage they were doing to the environment – the melting ice caps, for example, were just another opportunity for profit. The eco campaigners – who spent a lot of time lecturing everyone about the unquestioned scientific evidence behind the global catastrophe that would result from continued CO2 emissions – were, in contrast, uniformly saintly. Complain about lack of balance? Er, no … I don’t think so. This was, after all, a fictional drama so such questions obviously cannot arise.
Hi Peter,
For shame! You have “cherry-picked” out the cold and icy winter 2007/08 in your analysis.
You are quoting 2007 figures and I am quoting 2008 figures, where the latest month reported so far is June 2008. Your data are outdated, Peter, as is your conclusion drawn from these data.
As you wrote earlier: “We’ll all just have to wait another three months to see what the figure will be for [September] 2008.” This is absolutely correct.
You wrote: “Maybe you should take a look at what the NSIDC are saying about Antarctica. Surely that can’t be so bad.
How about this link?”
http://nsidc.org/pubs/notes/63/Notes_63_web.pdf
Your “Wilkins collapse” report, “Antarctic Sea Ice Disintegration Underscores a Warming World” has been ballyhooed as a piece of alarmist hype to distract from the fact that Antarctic sea ice has grown by around 7% in extent over the 1979-2000 mean or at an average rate of around 3.7% per decade.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SOLSTICE_SEA_ICE_UPDATE.pdf
But let’s put your blurb on Wilkins into proper perspective.
The Wilkins Ice Shelf, which was reported in the NSIDC press release you cited to be “beginning to collapse”, is located off the Antarctic Peninsula, the only tiny portion of the continent that is warming today.
Wilkins represents 13,680 sq.km. of floating ice, roughly 0.088% (less than one-thousandth) of the entire Antarctic sea ice.
The cumulative growth in Antarctic sea ice (over the 1979-2000 mean) represents 1 million sq.km. or over 70 times Wilkins.
To your derogatory but otherwise irrelevant remark, “I’m tempted to compare you with an ostrich, which has been reported to bury its head in the sand, presumably to keep out the bad news, at the first sign of danger”, I can only add the question, “whose head is in the sand, Peter?”
The record shows that, on balance, global sea ice extent is expanding rather than shrinking. So I’m sure we can all be happy that the dire predictions of IPCC (and other more hysterical alarmists) are unfounded, when it comes to “positive feedback” from albedo changes caused by global sea ice reduction.
Now let us look at the IPCC “spin” on sea ice in SPM 2007.
On p.7 IPCC states: “Datellite data since 1978 show that arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade.”
On p.9 they describe the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice as follows: “Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show interannual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends.”
In other words, a physically observed and recorded 3.7% per decade growth rate in Antarctic sea ice is described as “no statistically significant average trend” while a 2.7% per decade shrinking rate in the Arctic is worth mentioning. Hmmm… Where is the scientific objectivity?
And on p.15 they predict, “Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.”
It’s hard to take this prediction “based on SRES scenarios” too seriously in light of the physically observed facts.
To your final statement, “So, again, nice try at being selective with your choice of data, but let’s have the complete story please.”
You’ve got the complete (and updated) story right here, Peter, not in your “cherry-picked” and outdated 2007 reports for Arctic sea ice and a press blurb on the Wilkins Ice Shelf.
So you can cheer up, Peter, and forget the “ostrich analogy”; it will only come back to bite you in the tail.
Regards,
Max
I would like to add to the Arctic melting discussion, having just reviewed the science (which can be found on my website: http://www.ethos-uk.com). In my view, Arctic sea ice extent depends upon the state of the Beaufort gyre – which pulses cold water from Alaska to Greenland. This gyre is driven by the temperature difference between the Alaskan shelf and the Arctic seas and it is cyclic – about 70 yrs. In its cold phase very cold winds drive the gyre and the pulsing current keeps North Atlantic water from entering between Norway and Greenland. In its warm phase the gyre weakens and NA water penetrates northward. The last warm phase peaked in 1940 (about) and many Arctic stations did not exceed that peak until 2005. In my view, the warm phase is driven by what happens in the North Pacific off Alaska. This past 30 years the Pacific warm phase oscillation has dumped cloud and rain in Alaska and the winds have fallen, the gyre has weakened, 14% more cloud has been recorded over ther last 20 years above the ice – and hence the ice has been melted from below by the penetrating Atlantic water and from above by the IR radiation from cloud. This explains why the warming is not consistent with the small increase in carbon dioxide over the timescale of 50% ice loss since 2003, and too fast for CO2 when the models predicted complete ice losss (summer ice) by 2100 not 2010. As for the future, the Pacific oscillation has now entered a 30 year cool phase – especially noticeable off Alaska, and so give it a year or so and the Arctic will cool down again. If CO2 is having an effect, it looks to me from the 1940 data to have increased the warm phase by 20%. Which means that is also likely to be the max greenhouse driver (anthropogenic) and that natural forces dominate.
Hi Peter,
BTW the apparent discrepancy between IPCC model forecasts and physical observations is not limited to just global sea ice changes (and resulting “positive” feedback from surface albedo change).
It is apparent in the IPCC model assumptions on “positive” feedback from water vapor, where physical observations from satellites confirm an increase in tropospheric water vapor content with increased sea surface temperature, and, therefore,a “positive” (warming) feedback, but only around one-fifth to one-third the magnitude assumed by the computer models.
It is also apparent in IPCC model assumptions on “positive” feedback from clouds, where recent reports based on physically observed facts from satellites show a major “negative” (or cooling) feedback, which more than offsets the “positive” feedback from water vapor.
So we see that a major weakness of the GCM assumptions and projections cited by IPCC is that they are not validated by physically observed data; in fact, they are refuted by these data.
What is the impact of all this?
IPCC states that “water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest [positive] feedback” (at a “multi-model mean” of 1.8 W/m^2). Assumed positive feedback from clouds is 0.69 W/m^2, and from surface albedo 0.26 W/m^2.
Based on these positive feedbacks (plus an assumed “negative feedback of –0.84 W/m^2 from “lapse rate”), the “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase expected by a doubling of atmospheric CO2, i.e. from 280 ppmv in 1750 to 560 ppmv in 2100) as assumed by the IPCC models to lie between 2C and 4.5C “with a best estimate of 3C”.
Correcting this “best estimate” for the difference between actual physical observations and climate model assumptions puts the “positive” feedback from water vapor at 0.6 (rather than 1.8) W/m^2, the cloud feedback at a “negative” –1 to -2 W/m^2 (rather than a “positive” 0.69 W/m^2, and surface albedo at 0 (assuming Antarctic sea ice growth will continue to more than offset Arctic sea ice loss), resulting an an overall sensitivity of around 0.7C (rather than 3C).
At 45% of the CO2 increase already experienced to date (380 ppmv) we have theoretically already experienced around 0.3C warming from CO2 (plus a bit from CH4 plus other minor GHGs and a slightly larger bit from the sun and other as yet unidentified causes).
This means we will see the remaining 0.4C warming from CO2 from today until 2100.
Yawn…
That’s the really good news, Peter.
Regards,
Max
This is only tangentially related to our discussion herein, but I am interested in the point of view from this (mostly) international group on the subject of a recent post on my blog.
[Tony, please forgive me if there is a better place to post this]
Max,
You might just want to check your calendar and remind yourself of the year.
If we are comparing the loss of sea ice, over the past few decades, for the months of June , July, August and September, I would have thought that it was quite reasonable to leave out the figures for 2008, as apart from the June figure, and which we both agree on, the figures for the other months are due to be issued at some future date!
Even so, I am happy to offer you a new bet (US$100 ?) that the updated graphs when they do become available will not significantly change the figures that I have reported. They will still show that the decadal ice loss over the last 29 years will be 3.4% for June, 6.2% for July, 8.4% for August, and 10% for the minimum in early September.
If you’d care to make your predictions we can see who comes out to be closest in 3 months time.
Peter Taylor,
This is all very speculative. As wiki would say, “citation needed” ! Just about after every sentence too.
Robin,
I meant to get back to you about the question you’ve been meithering on about for the past few posts. I’m really not sure what you are asking but if you’d like to rephrase it again from the start…..
Hi Peter,
You are beating a dead horse and avoiding the key issue when you write: “You might just want to check your calendar and remind yourself of the year.
If we are comparing the loss of sea ice, over the past few decades, for the months of June, July, August and September, I would have thought that it was quite reasonable to leave out the figures for 2008.”
We are not “comparing the loss of sea ice, over the past few decades, for the months of June, July, August and September”. We are comparing the trends cited and published monthly by NSIDC for the past decades. I have been tracking these for many months and they are interesting. They tell us that Arctic sea ice is shrinking at an average rate of around 3% per decade (IPCC reported a shrinking of 2.7% per decade, presumably using 2005 data).
At the same time the long-term record shows that Antarctic sea ice is growing by 3.7% per decade. Since the total extent of Antarctic sea ice is somewhat larger than that in the Arctic, the net global impact is that sea ice is growing slightly (not shrinking).
As a result it is safe to say that the surface albedo feedback from changes in sea ice is not a “positive” (i.e. warming) feedback as suggested by IPCC (and programmed into the GCMs), but a slight “negative” (or cooling) feedback.
And that, Peter, is my point, which you have evaded but have been unable to refute.
“Checking my calendar” is not going to change the facts, Peter. They speak for themselves.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Well I’m much too polite , usually at least :-), to call you a dead horse but ……
Seriously the figure of 3.4% is OK for the months of June but way off generally. As I’ve shown the figures rise quickly in the following months.
You are quite right to decline the bet because, by sticking with your 3.4% figure, you’d certainly lose !!
Updated by whom? Hansen?
manacker — Where did you get the ‘information’ regarding satellites and water vapor measurements? The usual disinformation sites?
[This will have to be my last post here. The response time to keying has dropped off so far that it is too difficult.]
To All,
When I’m wrong I have to admit it. It seems now that the New York Times predicts the Arctic will soon be open ocean. So, in that vein, I’ll have to Obamasise, (flip-flop) my position and admit freely and openly that I was wrong and now agree with Peter Martin and the New York Times. The Arctic will be ice free, open ocean, soon.
NYT: Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/nyt-expert-says-arctic-ocean-will-soon-be-an-open-sea/
Whoops! That newspaper article was from 1969!
Sorry, back to my original position………(I Obamaed again!)
Deja Vu all over again: climate worries of today also happened in the 20’s and 30’s
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/deja-vu-all-over-again-climate-worries-today-also-happened-in-the-20s-and-30s/
C/O Anthony Watts
We could all learn a little bit from our weather history. We could all step back a bit and look at what previously happened in our climate changes before we make a rush to judgement to try to “fix” a problem that is very likely just another natural variance on the upswing, soon to be followed by a downturn.
There are quite a number of articles on “climate change” in the past, for further reading, try looking at some of these article links submitted by readers of this forum from the New York Times newspaper archives. Just click on the date. Thanks to Tim Blair for compiling the list below from our reader submitted links as well as his own research.
• 1923:
Glaciers have disappeared and land once covered with field ice is bare.
• 1924:
Glaciers are moving from their age-old beds, pouring greater quantities of ice into the sea than recorded history has known. Broad areas of land are sinking to new levels. A number of islands have disappeared.
• 1930:
The Alpine glaciers are in full retreat. Out of 102 glaciers observed by Professor P.L. Mercanton of the University of Lausanne and his associates more than twothirds have been found to be shrinking.
• 1935:
The great glaciers of the West, last remnants of the Ice Age on continental United States, have been retreating from their strongholds in the mountains at double time since last year.
• 1947:
A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today.
There are also many reports of the climate turning colder:
• 1895:
The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions.
• 1961:
Winters Since ‘40 Found Colder In Studies by Weather Bureau; Data Indicate, a Reversal of a Warming Trend That Began in 1881
• 1961:
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.
• 1975:
Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
• 1978:
An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Thus nature, and the NYT, balances itself. The paper really should return to the Grandfather Index of climate judgment:
• 1934:
America is believed by Weather Bureau scientists to be on the verge of a change of climate, with a return to increasing rains and deeper snows and the colder Winters of grandfather’s day.
• 1936:
The recent severely cold weather, following, in the main, many mild Winters, has caused people throughout the country to ask: “Does this portend a return to the reputed cold Winters of ‘granddad’s day’ years ago?”
Yep; all over the US, that’s exactly what people were asking. But listen to folks from the actual Granddad’s Day era and they’ll tell you the real cold was earlier still:
• 1890:
Is our climate changing? … The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young …
Also, there are fewer mastodons. Last word to the ominously-named, but perfectly sensible, Mr Scarr:
• 1924:
Some People Always Think the Climate Is Changing, But Mr. Scarr Says There Is Nothing in His Records to Justify the Notion
——————————————————————————–