Two days ago I highlighted a news story from the Washington Post Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt dated from November 2nd 1922. That brought a flood of interest and some other interesting finds along with it as other readers contributed what they found on the story.
One of the most interesting finds was a study published in the Monthly Weather Review in September 1933 Titled: IS OUR CLIMATE CHANGING? A STUDY OF LONG-TIME TEMPERATURE TRENDS.
The first page of the original article is below:

Click this link for the full PDF of the article.
What is most interesting about this article is that it stems from a realization that the regular weather patterns they used to know were now acting differently. For example this form the article:
The phase of weather, or climate, that is attracting attention at the present time is not these short-period changes from warm to cool, and vice versa, for they are always present, but rather an apparent longer-time change to cool periods that seem to be less frequent and of shorter duration, and warm periods that are more pronounced and persistent.
And when you look at some of the city temperature graphs presented in the article, such as the one below, the parallels between them and some graphs presented in the present day are striking:

There is even the familiar argument and rebuttal about the Urban Heat Island effect:
It has been suggested that these tendencies to abnormally high-temperature records in recent years may be more apparent than real, in that data cited are nearly always from large cities where the thermometers may have been unduly affected by artificial influences that do not obtain in the open country. We have examined this phase of the matter and find that the suggestion is not well taken.
In the concluding remarks, the is the recognition of climate change to a warmer regime:
All of these confirm the general statement that we are in the midst of a period of abnormal warmth, which has come on more less gradually for many years.
Of course we all know what happened next, 1934 became the hottest year on record, the dust bowl and great depression occurred, followed by World War II. The climate changes again, a return to a colder phase lasting all the way until about 1978 when the “new ice age” was being discussed. Then the great PDO shift occurred and warming has been the norm since then.
There wasn’t any push then to accept blame for the change or to take action to change the climate. Many people look to the graph below though and see something other than natural variations.

The difference today is that during this warming phase, much like what led up to 1934, had a significant El Nino year of 1998, and it set off alarm bells. Because unlike in the 30’s, when this paper was written, somebody was ready to step in with a cause that they believed could be modified by action- man made CO2.
Yet as this graph recently published on ICECAP by Joe D’Aleo shows, it appears that the Pacfic Decadal Oscillation (PDO), combined with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is a good fit to the instrumental surface temperature record of the last 100 years:

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
So, Anthony, where does this lead? We know the pattern of 20C temperatures. Globally, 40 years rise, 30 years pause/dip, then the rise resumes. In the US similar, but with more of a dip. The reasons have been much discussed. You have collected a list of contemporary remarks which are broadly consistent with this. Is the point that there were some inaccuracies? They didn’t have satellites and computers. Or that they didn’t have reasons for the change? Well, science advances.
REPLY: I don’t see any inaccuracies in this article, except perhaps the brushoff on UHI. I think it’s imply the didn’t ascribe reasons (or blame) to the change. They just chose to go with the flow.
Truth is (indeed) stranger than fiction…
Top stuff, Anthony. Fascinating.
That is one of the most interesting blogs I’ve ever read.
So evidence is accumulating that people complain more about the heat than the cold. 🙂
Nice piece of research Tim Blair.
Folks might be interested in this article on CNN’s website:
Scientists forecast a storm from climate change
in particular the quote: Dr Trenberth believes that the increasing intensity of hurricanes will conversely result in less storms per year — a hurricane cools the sea so that there is less likelihood of further storms forming in its wake — but that the storms that do form will be much more devastating and much more likely to cost human lives.
So now global warming will reduce the frequency of hurricanes!
I recently found a 2006 article that I’ll reference in a new web page with:
Fire and Ice
This article looks at media reports on the imminent Ice Age (1895), the
benefits of ongoing CO2-related warming (1938), how the cooling since 1940
… will not soon be reversed (1975), “Our ability to live is what is at
stake” (2006). One of its recommendations is “Don’t stifle debate.”
——
The article itself is a little disjointed and makes a couple passes through the subject, but it’s a good source of additional references to past predictions that either didn’t pan out or have become fashionable again.
Anthony,
I posted a little nugget on another thread concerning the overlapping growth of arctic and antarctic ice. From these graphs at cryosphere today:
NH: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
SH: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
You can see that starting in mid-Feb, Antarctic ice turned the corner and started building again. SH ice is ~1million km^2 ahead of where it was last year, and last year was a record year. NH ice is STILL GROWING, even as late as mid-March. As you can see from the graph, it has not hit it’s peak. Last year at this time, it was already melting. Both hemispheres are accumulating ice, and have been for ~a month so far.
I got someone at Realclimate to state that the overlap was “normal” and the “normal” length of time that both hemispheres build ice together is 1-2 weeks. But what if it’s a month (4 weeks)? Month and a half (6 weeks)? Does that mean anything? Is this a new metric that can be tracked?
Anthony,
You and your allies are state treasures !
Thank you all so much for the efforts you all put forth to shine the light of fact into the darkness that the “debate is over” crowd would have us live in.
Anthony,
What a wonderful post. It makes me wonder why the word unprecedented is used in our alarmist warmer language so much. It appears that the warming we are feeling now and the cooling we are starting to feel aren’t any thing out of the ordinary. That they are part of nature’s normal variability. It would seem to me that if we are experiencing a PDO and AMO along with the sun’s inactivity have very possibly put us in a cooling period. I wonder what would happen if we were to have a major volcanic eruption now. I can only imagine what the flap would be in the circles of the “TEAM”.
Great post it appears that history does repeat itself.
Thank you Mr. Watts.
Bill
Anthony,
Take a look at this:
http://i31.tinypic.com/fbwa5h.jpg
It’s the latest HadCRUT3 global anomaly graph. I don’t know how they are smoothing (anybody?), but from eyeballing the smoothed series, I estimate a warming trend in the run up to the peak ~1940 of ~0.177C/decade, and in the run up to the peak ~2005 of ~0.194C/decade.
Now if we assume that the increase through the ’20’s and ’30’s was “normal” (normal climate forcings, no AGW), and that the higher rate of change through ’80’s and ’90’s is entirely attributable to the influence of AGW (something I’m not convinced is true), that’s only 0.014C per decade. Extrapolating, AGW would add 0.14C of global warming over the next century.
I’ll find the quote later, but IPCC represents the historical data to say that in the second half of the last hundred years (1906-2005) that the rate of change in global temperatures substantially accelerated. That’s not what we see in the HadCRUT3 chart. The rate of change during the ’20s and ’30’s was almost as great as the rate of change in the ’80s and ’90’s, with the latter only incrementally greater.
Just treat my eyeballing, for now, as a first approximation. I’ll get the raw data and see what I can come up with more precisely in the next day or two.
By the way, everyone clucking their tongue at the downturn shown in the HP smoothing in Part II of my “To Tell The Truth,” series, take a look at what HadCRUT3 is showing after 2005. What’s up with that?
Basil
Correction: I meant “Part III.”
I don’t suppose they have a list of those “disappeared” islands. I know that if it were truly that bad, the island I live on (Whidbey) would have been split into three or more separate islands. I don’t remember seeing any dramatic rise of 2-3 feet in sea level in the early 20th century. Sounds like they had alarmists back then too.
Anthony, this does not have anything to do with the Deja Vu blog but I thought the work Valery Hronusov from the Russian Academy of Sciences might be of some interest. He is doing some really creative things with Google Earth and this link shows NASA Annual Day Land Temperatures of the Earth (MODIS) loadable into GE.
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2006/01/nasa_annual_day.html
It originates from this link about oil and gas
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2006/04/oil_and_geology.html
Some of the readers might be interested in this.
14 newspaper articles over 100 year period is significant? Get a grip.
Looking at the past and present trending, well I think we can definitively conclude: The climate has changed when we have entered the next ice age.
Apparently, NPR thinks Global Warming is a mystery too. Since 2003 the ocean has cooled, sea level has risen, and we don’t know how to interpret the data…
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
[realclimate reality]
AGW starteted much sooner than originally thought. This gives us even less time to act!!! Such as 10 minutes…
[realclimate reality/]
Another article today claiming that 2008 will be in the top 10 warmest.
Phil Jones says And an underlying warming trend, blamed by the U.N. Climate Panel on human use of fossil fuels, is likely to reassert itself after the end of a La Nina cooling of the Pacific in the coming months. There were similar conditions in 1998 and 2005, the hottest so far, Jones said
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t 1998 and 2005 strong El Nino years and that’s why they where much warmer. Jones statement doesn’t make sense because we’re in a La Nina year.
According to an article at Ice Cap it doesn’t look like 1998 and 2005 were preceded by La Nina.
Is this Jones guy just screwed up in the head? or is the reporter? or am I missing something?
So how does this guy predict it? Another wonderful model for Jones and gang?
Dear Winnebago
14 news paper articles found, I am sure that there are many more.
The major point is this.
The alarmists principal claims are as follows :
“both the current temperature and the rate of increase in temperature are unprecedented”
“The reduction in NH Sea Ice extent over the last few years is due to AGW”
“there is no other explanation that fits the facts”
“the science is settled and the debate is over”
errr……………….. Sorry………….. all of the above are untrue.
And with respect to the last one the debate is far from over, not by a long shot.
Re: John Goetz’s comment on Dr. Trenberth
Trenberth is well restrained in the CNN article that you mentioned. For the sake of people who haven’t already seen this, take a look at Trenberth’s “future hurricane.”
You should be interested in the cosmic ray count from 1964 to 2008, very interesting progression of lows and highs. Right now we are at the highest level of neutron counts since record keeping began. http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/Request.dll?Y1=1964&M1=Jan&D1=01&h1=00&m1=00&Y2=2008&M2=Mar&D2=31&h2=00&m2=00&YR=01&MR=00&DR=00&hR=00&mR=00&PD=1
If you have to run it again, choose a 1 year resolution to reproduce the results.
I seem to remember snow cover was much higher when I was a kid… But then, of course I was much smaller myself back then.
Seriously now… I am having a hard time staying away from this blog. Just can’t stop tracking it daily and checking the responses. Made me even pull my stats study books from a forgotten bookcase, thinking I should have been paying more attention in those classes…
Kudos for this blog. Very interesting.
PGosselin Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
And I thought they knew everything there is to know.
http://www.npr.org/ templates/ story/ story.php?storyId=88520025
The science is settled? Oh really?
Not so fast. Look at the vocabulary and language used in this report:
“…a puzzling message…”
“That could mean…”
“…scientists aren’t quite understanding…”
“This is puzzling because…”
“…has been a very slight cooling…”
“…may be… (used more than once)
“…something more mysterious is going on.”
“…there’s a little bit of a mystery.”
“One possibility is…”
“We can’t account for all of the sea level increase…”
“…scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data…”
“…that raises a new question:…”
“…probably going back out into space…”
“That can’t be directly measured…”
“…we don’t have adequate tracking of…”
“It’s also possible that…”
“Or it’s possible that…”
“…they don’t know about. ”
“…all this new data about…”
“…send people back to the drawing board.”
“…still things to learn…”
And I love the part about the earth having natural thermostats. Now wasn’t Richard Lindzen recently ridiculed for having floated out that idea? Hmmmm
Believe me. This is a very long way from being understood.
I have some questions regarding the plot that shows the USHCN temperature varying with PDO+AMO.
Where did he obtain a single temperature time series product for the USHCN? There are ways to calculate this using the USHCN product, but do they actually produce a time series for US temperatures? If he did calculate it, how was it done?
What exactly is the blue curve? It is not simply the addition of PDO and AMO as the title of the graph says. I assume it’s a linear combination of PDO and AMO, but what are the weightings? Were the weightings chosen to maximize the correlation with the USHCN temperature?
REPLY: See this paper http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf
Anyone know what’s up at WCR? Nothing’s been posted there in 2 weeks, and I’m getting mighty antsy.