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.
Brute,
You sitting on the fence? I don’t remember any of that. Maybe you can give me a link to remind me. You certainly landed on the wrong side when you fell off!
Tell me where I’m wrong That would take another 8 months to go through it all again!
Max,
I do remember plotting out my own graphs to prove a point from Met Office data and was accused of fudging it all.
But that wasn’t raw data. There is an awful lot of work in collecting the data, analysing and interpreting it. You think climate scientists at NASA and elsewhere are hoaxers and frauds so you won’t believe anything at all that they write, press releases or otherwise. I’m not sure why you are suggesting looking at the raw data. Don’t you think they’ve cooked that up too?
Hi Peter,
You wrote, “I do remember plotting out my own graphs to prove a point from Met Office data and was accused of fudging it all.
But that wasn’t raw data. There is an awful lot of work in collecting the data, analysing and interpreting it. You think climate scientists at NASA and elsewhere are hoaxers and frauds so you won’t believe anything at all that they write, press releases or otherwise. I’m not sure why you are suggesting looking at the raw data. Don’t you think they’ve cooked that up too?”
This is a rather rambling group of fairly non-connected statements.
I cannot remember when you plotted your “own graphs to prove a point from Met Office data” and were “accused of fudging it all” (at least not by me). Can you refresh my memory by citing the specific post where this was done?
To the second part of your statement I would simply say that “climate scientists” at Hadley, NASA and elsewhere make themselves less than credible when they issue annual press release headlines predicting “another record warm year due to AGW” and then have to crawl back at the end of the year to grudgingly concede that it was not a record year after all.
Frankly, this kind of behavior makes me suspicious.
I am not saying (since I have no proof to back it up) that GISS and Hadley are actually cooking the raw data. The recent corrections to the GISS record as well as the Jan-Apr 08 “ex post facto revision” of the Hadley record raise eyebrows, but there is not enough transparency in the figures to conclude that there has been any fraud, so one has to accept the record for what it is.
Fortunately there is always the satellite record to keep things from getting too far out of line.
Peter, you will see from the above that I feel strongly that when those “climate scientists” who are supposed to be bringing us unbiased temperature data begin making “forecasts” of ever-increasing temperatures and even link these forecasted increases to the effects of AGW, I begin to have problems with their objectivity.
I strongly believe that they should limit their activity to doing exactly what they are being paid to do, namely bring us unbiased and unmassaged temperature data, and that they should refrain from “analyzing or interpreting” the data they collect, and, even more, from issuing periodic PR releases warning us that “next year” will reach “record hot temperatures” directly linked to AGW.
Finally, you wrote, “I’m not sure why you are suggesting looking at the raw data.”
Peter, the raw data may be “fudged”, but they are all we have. “Interpretations” of the raw data by individual “scientists” at Hadley or GISS are, by definition, less objective than the data themselves, as I am sure you must agree.
Hope this clears it up for you, Peter, so you can understand.
Regards,
Max
Peter,
You seem to be insisting that some of the questions that have been asked of you by us rationalists, are too complicated, such that a simple answer like YES or NO is not possible, and thus we have made zero progress in the “debate“. I now frame a question to you which I believe should not be too (Non troppo) complicated for you, and which might, hopefully, generate a simple and untangled response:
First the background or foundation of ONE simplified question that I ponder might liberate your free expression of unhindered thought:
You have severally and diversely stated that the recent years of melting of sea-ice in the North Atlantic is a clear verification of continued global warming, as predicted by computer modelling. THIS is something that I think you are firmly grounded on.
THE SIMPLE QUESTION:
Please advise if my understanding, as emphasised above in bold text, is correct; (YES) or NO.
Global Warming’s Kaput; 2008 Coolest in 5 Years
Monday, September 8, 2008 1:10 PM
By: Phil Brennan
The global warming theory is going into the freezer, some climate experts say.
The first half of this year was the coolest in at least five years, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). And the global warming that has taken place during the past 30 years is over, says geologist Don J. Easterbrook, a professor emeritus at Western Washington University.
Easterbrook, who has written eight books and 150 journal publications, predicts that temperatures will cool between 2065 and 2100 and that global temperatures at the end of the century will be less than 1 degree cooler than now. This is in contrast to other theories saying that temperatures will warm by as much as 10 degrees by 2100.
In March, Easterbrook said he was putting his “reputation on the line” by predicting global cooling.
“The average of the four main temperature measuring methods is slightly cooler since 2002 [except for a brief el Niño interruption] and record breaking cooling this winter. The argument that this is too short a time period to be meaningful would be valid were it not for the fact that this cooling exactly fits the pattern of timing of warm/cool cycles over the past 400 years,” Easterbrook wrote on March 1.
Added to his assertion was the WMO revelation that the first half of 2008 was the coolest for at least five years and that the rest of the year almost will certainly be cooler than recent years, although temperatures remain above the historical average.
The global mean temperature to the end of July was 0.28 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, Britain’s Met Office Hadley Centre for climate change research said Wednesday. That would make the first half of 2008 the coolest since 2000. Chillier weather this year is partly because of a global weather pattern called La Nina that follows a periodic warming effect called El Nino.
“We can expect with high probability this year will be cooler than the previous five years,” said Omar Baddour, responsible for climate data and monitoring at the WMO. “Definitely the La Nina should have had an effect, how much we cannot say. Up to July 2008, this year has been cooler than the previous five years at least. It still looks like it’s warmer than average.”
Also snowing on the global warming enthusiasts is the highly respected “Farmer’s Almanac,” which predicts that the coming winter will be “catastrophic” because of bitter cold weather.
People worried about the high cost of keeping warm this winter will draw little comfort from the prediction of below-average temperatures for most of the U.S., says the 192-year-old publication, famed for its accuracy of 80 percent to 85 percent.
“Numb’s the word,” the almanac’s 2009 edition says, adding that at least two-thirds of the country can expect colder-than-average temperatures, with only the far West and Southeast in line for near-normal readings.
“This is going to be catastrophic for millions of people,” the almanac’s editor, Peter Geiger, told The Associated Press, noting that the frigid forecast combined with high prices for heating fuel is sure to compound problems households will face in keeping warm.
The almanac predicts above-normal snowfall for the Great Lakes and Midwest, especially during January and February, and above-normal precipitation for the Southwest in December and for the Southeast in January and February, the almanac states. Also, the Northeast and the mid-Atlantic regions can expect an unusually wet or snowy February.
Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, a professor of Earth and environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania, told phillymag.com that the history over the last 1 billion years on the planet reveals “only about 5 percent of that time has been characterized by conditions on Earth that were so cold that the poles could support masses of permanent ice.”
Giegengack also noted that, “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler.”
Further ammunition for global warming skeptics came from south of the border, where a Mexican scientist warns that Earth will enter a “little ice age” for up to 80 years because of a decrease in solar activity.
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics at Mexico’s National Autonomous University, predicts that the ice period will begin in about 10 years.
Predictions of a gradual increase in temperatures called global warming are erroneous, Velasco Herrera told a conference at the Centre for Applied Sciences and Technological Development regarding predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The IPCC models and forecasts are wrong because they are based only on “mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity,” he said.
The phenomenon of climate change should include other kinds of factors, both internal, such as volcanoes and human activity, and external, such as solar activity, he said.
“In this century, glaciers are growing,” as seen on the Perito Moreno mountain in the Andes; on Mount Logan, the highest mountain in Canada; and on Franz-Josef Glacier, New Zealand, Velasco Herrera said.
Satellite data indicate that a period of global cooling may have begun in 2005, he said.
Hi Brute,
Your article quoting Don Easterbrook will probably get a mixed reaction from the bloggers on this site.
AGW-supporters, like Peter, WANT to believe in AGW as a serious problem of our time, caused by human excesses and urgently requiring major “mitigation” strategies (i.e. massive carbon taxes and drastic changes in lifestyle) to “save the planet” from ourselves. These people will likely dismiss the Easterbrook prediction of a cooling planet with statements such as “a few years is too short to see a new trend”, “it’s warmer today than it ever has been”. In other words, this group will react with DENIAL.
AGW-skeptics, like many of the rest of us may at first chuckle because the AGW bubble has been popped, but, in the final analysis, most of us will look at the new projections of a cooler planet and what impact this could have on the world’s populations. Unfortunately, this is not a very nice picture. Serious global cooling could present a far greater threat to humanity than global warming could ever do.
I would be curious what you, Bob_FJ, JZSmith and the others really think about the prospect and impact of a significantly colder Earth if this cooling trend continues or worsens as reduced solar activity and whatever other natural factors begin driving temperatures down.
The article does refer to the Farmers’ Almanac, which has been in business for quite a bit longer than IPCC and has a much higher “hit rate” on climate trends than the multi-million dollar computer models (of Hadley, GISS, etc.). This almanac predicts a very cold winter ahead. It is already September 9, so we only have a bit more than 3 months for the official start of winter, and 6 months to see if they were correct or not.
Here is where I may actually be hoping for the same thing as Peter, namely no further continuation or worsening of the 2007/2008 cooling trend into this winter and next year.
He’ll be hoping this to keep his “belief” in AGW alive; I’ll be hoping it because I do not believe we want to see any significant long-term cooling on this planet, as this represents a far greater threat than global warming, in my opinion.
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ,
Yes, of course, the melting ice at the Arctic, and where the effect is predicted to be largest, is symptomatic of global warming. This is consistent with the IPCC models but it is easy to understand why that should be also.
It is always worth taking a look at the NSIDC website at this time of year.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It looks like Arctic sea ice won’t be quite as bad as last year. Just the second worst year on record. Contrarians will no doubt point out that there is an increase in ice, (670,000 sq kilometers, more than the size of the UK. Wow!) from the same time last year. It must be a close run thing as to who they are trying to fool more. Themselves or everyone else?
If you look at NSIDC’s fig. 5 you can see that the graph zig-zags downward since 1978. In 13 of those years there was actually an increase in sea ice from the previous year. But, can even the most fanatical contrarian seriously expect anyone to believe that the downward trend is anything much different from what NSIDC say it is? An 8.7% decrease per decade for the month of August.
Max and Brute,
OK so its back to the LIA theory again is it? If solar cycle 24 fails to kick off in the next year, and if the solar flux is shown to fall, and if temperatures do continue to fall, or even stay flat, for a few more years yet, then you could be right. Too many ‘ifs’ for now though.
Having said that, I must say that the solar cycles , and the reasons for them are not well understood. It is possible that the sun could suddenly decrease in brightness. Possible, but not likely.
It’s not a question of what I, or anyone else, wants or hopes for. No-one wants environmental degradation. Hope isn’t going to change anything one way or the other. I do not want my house to catch fire but, if I see warning signs, I take them seriously. It’s really a question of the scientific evidence. It’s all there for you to read. Take a look at the data itself if you don’t believe written conclusions. Most importantly, stay away from hearsay evidence on contrarian websites. Its nearly always wrong, both the data and the conclusions.
Hi Peter,
Looks like we’ll have to wait to see if it will re-start warming or continue to cool. I just hope it will not continue to cool very significantly for an extended period of time, since I am fully aware that this would be a significantly more disastrous development for our planet that the bit of warming we might see from AGW.
So I basically hope you are right, that the current cooling will gradually level off or reverse itself to a flat or moderate warming trend.
You wrote: “Most importantly, stay away from hearsay evidence on contrarian websites. Its nearly always wrong, both the data and the conclusions.”
This may be so, Peter.
I am assuming that you are not including this site, ClimateAudit or Watts’ sites in this category, so I am not sure to which “contrarian” sites you are referring. Can you be a bit more specific?
I would also steer away from any pseudo-scientific op-ed stuff being fed via the media even directly from Hadley or NASA/GISS individuals. These sometimes tend to get carried away with the importance of AGW and the accuracy of their models, only to have to waffle back to rationalize why their predictions fell flat.
And I have seen that anything on Tamino, Climate Progress or RealClimate is (as you put it so well) “nearly always wrong, both the data and the conclusions”.
As a rational skeptic, I think the best policy is to stick to the raw data, filter out the hype and make up your own mind.
I have seen that both Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre follow that approach. But when they publish something, I always go back to the raw data to check their stories. So far I have found them both to be quite accurate (at least on those things, which I have checked).
I have found exactly the opposite for Tamino, Joe Romm and Gavin Schmidt, who tend to bend the facts in order to fit their own views on AGW.
Regards,
Max
Max,
I agree with you. I hope we do not have global cooling, as I hate cold weather (hence my decision to live in sunny and warm southern California!) and clearly the planet and all the life aboard it will suffer far more from an ice age than a if we have a minor bit of warming. I wish Stargazer would have come here to Tony’s site and enlighten us with his (or her) views on the sun and how it affects our planet.
Hmmm… global warming 300 million years ago…
Who was burning too much fossil fuel then? Was there any fossil fuel then?
Max,
Re:1504
I posted that for discussion…..(seems to have worked), and to annoy Peter.
My thing is that there is nothing “wrong” with the weather or climate, (after all we are discussing a .6 degree temperature anomaly averaged over 150 years, averaged over the entire globe.
My thought is that the weather or climate goes through “seasons” on a larger time scale than the conventional, annual, Summer, Autumn, Winter, Spring…..maybe 100’s or thousands of years. I don’t stay up nights worrying about it. I do worry about people that see, (or think they see), a one degree rise in temperature as a harbinger of imminent doom or the apocalypse and then attempt to use doctored information and hysteria to further their personal political goals or sell a bit of snake-oil or Marxism, (Hansen/Gore).
I’m not partial to cold weather either; however, I always have the option of burning tons of jet fuel before the cooler weather arrives and spending those months in a warmer locale……technology is great.
Pete,
You seem disappointed……..I would think that someone as concerned about the status of “the environment” would be happy about this……
Max,
You say “So far I have found them both {including AW} to be quite accurate”
Well what about this one then? Here is Anthony Watt’s claiming that the NW passage is still impassable.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/northwest-passage-still-impassable/
Well it isn’t now.
It might have been when he wrote the article, but he either deliberately omitted to mention, or was not aware of, late August and early September being the time when the passages became open last year, and that he was a tad premature in his claim.
Bob_FJ,
Yes the atmosphere contained much higher levels of CO2 and climate was much warmer 300 million years ago. The sea levels were hundreds of feet higher too. While a hotter climate might suit some dinosaurs, some climate sceptics, and some who may be both, it doesn’t suit humanity in general.
We’ve evolved in the last million years or so to suit the present cooler climate.
Brute,
Yes, I agree, the rapid decline of Arctic ice is both disappointing and worrying.
Can we all have a vote?
According to a BBC World Service poll of 22,500 a four-to-one majority would prefer Democratic nominee Barack Obama to be US president, ahead of his Republican rival John McCain.
Some redneck Americans may not agree, but Ms Palin, rather than John McCain, is a real turn off for many women, who may not be consciously political, but who do recoil in horror at the idea of anything that could possibly be considered cruelty to animals. Pictures of her, with gun in hand, posing triumphally over a dead moose do not go down at all well.
Peter 1506, thanks for responding to my 1503, with (in part) :
(Your other stuff of yours omitted)
SO, I take it that your answer to my question in 1503 is YES!
OK, now let me take you way-back to Robin’s post 1268, (whilst he is away), in which he wrote in part:
[the foregoing] “…reminds me of
[ http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf ]
by Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu, founding director of the International Arctic Research Center (Alaska) and a leading authority on Arctic temperatures…”
Here is a key-note extract from Akasofu’s paper:
Figure 2 shows both the global average temperature and the temperature from stations widely
distributed along the coast of the Arctic Ocean (Polyakov et al., 2002) during the last 100 years
or so. One can see that the magnitude of temperature changes is significantly larger in the Arctic…
[Than the global average] A similar result was shown in the ACIA Report (2004); see p. 23.
Peter, please carefully study Figure 2 after Polyakov et al 2002, and advise if you accept the data in the said Fig.2.
Either:
YES, or;
NO.
I try again.
Did my post evaporate?
There is no message to say it is in mediation whatever, but I’ll remove the link, and have another go.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter 1506, thanks for responding to my 1503, with (in part) :
(Other stuff of yours omitted)
SO, I take it that your answer to my question in 1503 is YES!
OK, now let me take you way-back to Robin’s post 1268, (whilst he is away), in which he wrote in part:
[the foregoing] “…reminds me of (link removed, but available at 1268)
by Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu, founding director of the International Arctic Research Center (Alaska) and a leading authority on Arctic temperatures…”
Here is a key-note extract from Akasofu’s paper:
Figure 2 shows both the global average temperature and the temperature from stations widely
distributed along the coast of the Arctic Ocean (Polyakov et al., 2002) during the last 100 years
or so. One can see that the magnitude of temperature changes is significantly larger in the Arctic.
[Than the global average] A similar result was shown in the ACIA Report (2004); see p. 23.
Peter, please carefully study Figure 2 after Polyakov et al 2002, and advise if you accept the data in the said Fig.2.
Either:
YES, or;
NO.
Peter Martin 1512 wrote to me:
Allora! Thank you for that advice.
What made you think I needed it?
Are you wanting to change the subject again?
BTW, what was the population of hominids and their distribution back then?
When you become a American citizen, you will be permitted the right to vote in the Presidential election of The United States of America.
Peter, re your 1513:
As Brute says, fortunately only American citizens get a vote. Polling here in the States shows a big swing to McCain-Palin.
Read a few of these articles (from Wednesday, Sept 10) to get a feel for what Americans think.
Hi Peter,
You asked: “Can we all have a vote?”
No. Sorry. You and I (and Bob_FJ) will have to watch this one from the sidelines and let Brute and JZSmith select the next US President/VP.
You wrote: “According to a BBC World Service poll of 22,500 a four-to-one majority would prefer Democratic nominee Barack Obama to be US president, ahead of his Republican rival John McCain.
Don’t know where BBC is dredging up a 4:1 majority for Obama. Polls in the USA have the election at a dead heat today, with possibly a slight edge for McCain since Palin joined the ticket.
But, just like the weather, politics are hard to predict (as BBC has found out a few times already, when they blared out Hadley hype of “next year to be hottest!”, only to have to try to back down elegantly when the Hadley hype turned out to be a lot of hot air).
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
I am not really sure what point you were trying to make with your 1512, when you wrote that Anthony Watts reported back in early July that the NW Passage (yawn!) was still closed at that time (which it was).
As to any significance of the whole NW Passage ballyhoo, read:
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-reporting-about-northwest-passage.html
Appears that it was navigated “for the first time in history” in 2000, and that “history” started with the year 1978 (snore!).
But wait! It was also navigated in 1985 and 1988, as well as in the “pre-historic” years of 1957, 1969 and 1977 (ouch!).
Forget the NW Passage, Peter. It is a bogus non-issue that does not prove anything.
I stand by my statement, that I have found both Anthony Watts’ and Steven McIntyre’s blogsites to be accurate and impartial, while the sites of Joe Romm, Gavin Schmidt and Tamino are often inaccurate and biased.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
To the US election you opined: “Some redneck Americans may not agree, but Ms Palin, rather than John McCain, is a real turn off for many women, who may not be consciously political, but who do recoil in horror at the idea of anything that could possibly be considered cruelty to animals.”
Do not know from where you are getting your input, with which you say “some redneck Americans may not agree”, but you should really find a better source.
Polls in the USA have said that roughly 35% of the women voters who supported Hillary Clinton could swing to McCain, in protest over the “sexist” manner, in which Hillary was treated by the Democratic Party insiders (and the DNC). Some other polls say this is exaggerated by a factor of two. But all polls agree that there are disgruntled Hillary supporters.
And all the polls agree that the nomination of Palin as VP candidate has given McCain a net boost among women voters.
There were 18 million Hillary primary voters. Let’s say that 50% of these were women (probably there were more). This means 9 million women voters for Hillary who were not overly enthusiastic about Obama during the primary. Let’s say only 1/6th swing to McCain/Palin (1.5 million). And let’s say that another 1/6th stay at home rather than vote, so Obama retains the remaining 2/3rd who maintain “party solidarity”.
Not good news for Obama, particularly in a “neck to neck” election.
Means he has lost 3 million votes from women, of which McCain/Palin have picked up 1.5 million.
Of course, the polls change from day to day, but for now it looks like the Obama campaign has lost its momentum and the McCain campaign is on a roll since Palin was nominated.
One issue is emerging as a key difference between the candidadtes. While both talk of achieving “energy independence” for the USA, McCain appears to have a plan for achieving this, while Obama does not. McCain wants to exploit all sources (more off-shore and ANWR drilling, natural gas, nuclear power, wind, solar, bio-fuels, etc.), while Obama is wishy-washy about nuclear, opposes off-shore and ANWR drilling and wants to concentrate only on the renewable alternates, which everyone knows will be unable to make a major difference. Looks like the American people like McCain’s proposal better than Obama’s non-proposal.
We all know that the (so far unmentioned) 800-lb gorilla in the room is oil shale. This could be the avenue for achieving long-term energy independence for the USA. I give it a better chance under a McCain/Palin administration than under an Obama/Biden one.
These are truly interesting times, and as Bob Dylan said, “the times they are a’changin’”
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ,
The Polyakov graph appears to show that the Arctic was warmer in 1940 than the present time. This isn’t the view of the NDIDC who say it is warmer now. Your concern should be whether its the NSIDC who accept the data not me. They have slightly more influence!
It is interesting to note that the Canadian ice protected boat the St Roch made the NW passage crossing in 1940 with great difficulty. It would be vey easy at present. So, without spendind hours poring over data from weather stations, I would say that the NSIDC have it right.
However, I would accept that there is probably an warming amplification effect in the Arctic whether the causes are natural or anthropogenic.
So its a ‘no’ for the data, but a ‘yes’ for some of the more general observations.
“Thank you for that advice.” No worries!
Max,
“Don’t know where BBC is dredging up a 4:1 majority for Obama.” It was a BBC World Service servey. Are you sure you’re not American? The term “dredging up” would imply that you consider those surveyed to be lesser beings.
I’d be happy for only USA citizens to vote on their government as far as their own internal affairs are concerned. However, given their recent history of overseas military adventurism, I would say that there is a case for widening the democratic franchise when external affairs are involved :-)
I must say that I’m never quite sure about the use of the word ‘redneck’. I’m normally sufficiently politically correct to avoid inappropriate nouns, but I have been assured more than once that rednecks don’t mind being called rednecks as this article would seem to confirm? Is this correct?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7600000/7600592.stm
It interesting that Scottish and Irish heritage is linked to the phenomenon. Which is odd because you don’t see much evidence of the culture in Ireland or Scotland itself. From my observations, the working class culture in Scotland is a mix of Scottish nationalism, some religious sectarianism, but a lot of old fashioned socialism too. Even when Mrs T was at the height of her popularity in the UK, her party found it hard to win a seat north of the border.
So I would have to say it is an almost uniquely American sub-culture but we do see some evidence of it out here in Australia too.
Via Icecap……
The Arctic Ice Level in the 1920’s, 30’s and Early 40’s Was at a Similar Low Level
By Shawn Whelan, Comment on Climate Audit
The ice level in the 1920’s, 30’s and early 40’s was at a similar low level. The St. Roch went easily through the Northern route of the NW passage which is closed this year and that was in 1944. The HBC had many other boats freely navigating the southern route of the NW Passage.
Gjoa Haven(1930) and Cambridge Bay(1929) pictures showing low ice level. A lot more info in that link.
Hudson’s Bay Co. ship Baymaud, Cambridge Bay, south of Victoria Island, April 30, 1929. (L.T. Burwash/National Archives of Canada/PA 99698)
This little boat the Aklavik also made it through the NW Passage in 1937. Navigating the Northwest Passage in 1937 was a feat still unknown to most Canadians. The more publicized trip of the St. Roch, the RCMP ship, in 1942, is generally regarded as the first Canadian transit through the Passage. However, Scotty Gall piloted the HBC ship Akluvik through the Passage in the course of dropping supplies to HBC posts in 1937. He admits his trip was not publicized because individuals with the Bay at the time did not see that it was in their interest to publicize anything in the North.
Nascopie and Aklavik meet from East and West in 1937. The Nascopie commonly travelled through the passage in the 30’s. This evidence is ignored by science, and it shows the conditions in the Arctic in the thirties were similar to today. And then in the late 40’s the Arctic froze up and the HBC shut some of their posts due to the increased ice. What is called science has become an embarassment.
Icecap Note: The Northwest Passage was not finally conquered by sea until 1906, when the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen, who had sailed secretly to escape creditors seeking to stop the expedition, completed an arduous three-year voyage in the converted 47-ton herring boat Gj?a. The first single-season transit was achieved in 1944, when Sergeant Henry A. Larsen, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, made it through in a schooner. Interest in the Northwest Passage slackened until the 1960s, when oil was discovered in North Alaska and there was a desire for a short water route to transport oil to the east coast of the United States.
Dr. Gary Sharp has written about arctic explorer and scientist Joe Fletcher, recently deceased “About arctic passages “Joe pointed out several times to me in his B/W movies that there were seasons of nearshore ice-free situations – and others when skis or overflights were the only way in or out. Unfortunately – not enough years of observations – or guys with the right questions out there. Between 1956 and 1989 there were 33 passages. They are listed in the book Northwest Passage by Edward Struzik published in 1991. One was by K. Horie aboard the Japanese sloop Mermaid, who made an east to west passage in 1981-83. Another was by W. De Roos in a 42 foot ketch named Williwaw, who made the first single handed Passage in 1977 when the Northern Hemisphere was rather cold. Then, of course, there were all those US and Russian submarines cruising under the polar ice in the late 1950-90 Cold War period – that would occasionally find a hole – and pop up for a look-see.”
“This evidence is ignored by science, and it shows the conditions in the Arctic in the thirties were similar to today”
I’m afraid not. The warming of the first half of the 20th century peaked about 1940. That was when the St Roche set out on its first voyage across the NW passage. However it actually took 2 years and 4 months to complete it!
If it were doing the same journey now, at say 2000 nautical miles and 6 knots, it would take about two weeks.
Amundsen took over three years to struggle through in 1903 – 1906.
If genuine evidence is there it is certainly not ignored by science.