While we are on the subject of the APS and their consideration of their stance on climate, this statement came to me today via Philip Bratby in comments. I thought it presicent and worthwhile sharing, since once again there is great concern in the alarmosphere about the levels of Arctic sea ice this summer.
‘It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated. This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.’
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.(from) http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
If that quote seems familiar to you, it is because it was previously published here on WUWT as part of a larger article on Historic Variation in Arctic Sea Ice.
That quote was also in a letter sent to the current president of the Royal Society, Lord Rees, on 18 July 2009.
The full text of the letter penned by R.C.E. Wyndham to Lord Rees is available here as a PDF. While I do not agree with some things said in the letter, it is worth a read for the humorous writing style. I doubt very much that Lord Rees will respond.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“…by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice..”
This is rhetoric, not science. And its also patently not true.
…but then I read it again and spotted the date. Doh!
Plus ca change … plus c’est la meme chose….
In respect of the ‘climate change’ hysteria which is gripping politicians worldwide, we should be grateful to those who strive to counter it by presenting real and unbiased science and by arguing against the abuse of science that is so prevalent today. Anthony Watts, especially, is doing a wonderful job in highlighting flawed science.
However, if the present hysteria is to be overcome, then it must be done in the proper way, especially if the objective is to influence politicians and others. In my opinion, Wyndham’s letter to Lord Rees has not helped at all. The style and language adopted is ill-judged – in particular the repeated phrase “and you call this science?” which is practically guaranteed to annoy anyone who reads it – and the use of sneering, sarcastic and intemperate descriptive comments throughout. This is not the way to address the President of the Royal Society, or UK politicians (even the apparently dim Ed Miliband).
Hopefully, Wyndham’s letter will get filtered out by the various press offices, but if it gets through to the intended recipients, I doubt if any will read further than the first paragraph or two.
Of course, it is deplorable that the Royal Society and all political parties seem to be fully subscribed to the ‘warmist’ agenda, and it is essential that counter arguments are fully aired. But in the right way.
If you chek out the dmi polar temperature graph. And you also chek al the other years. The first thing that is obvious is that the temperature is almost constant in de zomer month and in the winter it is waving up and down but still very cold. You must conclude that the latest ice shrink in 2007 and 2008 an mabey 2009 is because of the wind and not temperature and therefor not globalwarming.
Heh, Steve, I guessed by the archaic language, but was off by a third of a century on my guess of the date. I’ll not tell you which way.
======================================
As the Royal Society appears to be impervious to logic and reason, ridicule appears to be the only method left. Let’s roll!
“..In my opinion, Wyndham’s letter to Lord Rees has not helped at all. The style and language adopted is ill-judged – in particular the repeated phrase “and you call this science?” which is practically guaranteed to annoy anyone who reads it – and the use of sneering, sarcastic and intemperate descriptive comments throughout. This is not the way to address the President of the Royal Society, or UK politicians…”
Respectfully. I must beg to disagree. In style and substance this is a magnificent missive, and I wish that I had written it. British politicians (and I count Martin Rees in that category) are not only used to dealing with dirt, but frequently fling it themselves.
I can see no credible situation where cogent argument will bring the current establishment to see the light. They are politically committed to claiming that black is white. Under these circumstances it is damaging the cause of truth to bend over to accomodate them. They are following a religion – a political ‘ism’, and have rejected science.
The important thing to do (as has been shown so many times before when expediency and tyranny go hand in hand) is to draw a line in the sand. Not for the benefit of those of us today, who are now irrevocably committed to conflict, but for the future generations, who will look back to this time in wonder at the manner in which mankind conducted its business….
(with apologies to W S Churchill…)
I have still doubts about validity of this chart: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
40ties were globally almost as warm as 2000s and Arctic temperature was the same – http://www.climate4you.com/images/MAAT%2070-90N%20HadCRUT3%20Since1900.gif
Global SST in 40ties were also not that far from today SST http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/190772/hadsst2.JPG
I read that even NW passage was open in 1944, but the first graph stubbornly shows constant ice extent until the satellite data came.
That’s small consolation to the self-imposed intercourse of cap & trade.
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153,
Interesting. This date occurs in the depths of the “Dalton Minimum”. But, I’m completely wrong , of course, whenever I suggest that the Dalton Minimum was not a particularly cold period.
I’ve warned on a number of occasions that reliance on the sun to explain GW will come back and bite the solarphiles. Yesterday, the Guardian (UK) published an article on a Lean & Rind study which cites the solar minimum as the reason for recent flat temperatures. The expectation is that warming will shortly resume at an increased rate. I think they could be right. If so the solar argument is gone and any opposition to AGW much reduced.
Seems to be quite a discrepancy between DMI Polar Temperature and NPEO at:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/
“The first thing that is obvious is that the temperature is almost constant in de zomer month and in the winter it is waving up and down but still very cold.”
I’ve noticed that warmists frequently choose to use proxies even when it’s possible to directly measure the effect they want to measure. The most extreme example is the joker who used wind speeds as a proxy for upper troposhpere temperatures when direct measurements were available.
Why would anyone voluntarily add a layer of complexity and uncertainty to their measurements? Seems to me it’s tempting when the direct measurements don’t give the answer you want.
Wasn’t the Dalton Minimum happening around then?
In a similar vein, this rather surprising piece appeared on BBC Online recently:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8167209.stm
Quote: “The Ilulissat glacier has indeed retreated dramatically in recent years – more than 15km in the last decade alone – but plenty of evidence suggests such rapid change in the ice is not unprecedented.
In fact, over the last 10,000 years (a period of long-term warming since the end of the last Ice Age), the glaciers on Greenland’s west coast have been through many periods of advance and retreat.
Four thousand years ago, the Earth was significantly warmer than it is now, and accordingly the glacier retreated; but the evidence suggests it was perhaps only 20km back from its current position.
In other words, the Ilulissat glacier may reach a point in its retreat where the dynamics of the ice sheet make further regression very difficult, and very slow.”
Is there any Ice Breaker activity at the moment on either the Canadian or Russian routes? Just interested as Spring melt on the Great Lakes and St Lawrence is given a helping hand by Ice Breakers. I read that the Russians are intent on opening up Arctic routes, and they are not the only ones.
Can anyone point me to a short list of reasons that man-caused global warming is so much fake-science? I have followed the issue since around 1974 and have seen a lot of the argument but it seems that these days the hysterical and fraudulent claims come 90 miles a minute. (bad metaphor, I know)
Another question while I have your attention. Why is the data from satellites not used for this debate? You can measure the entire planet from orbit rather than just airports in big cities. Heck, even if you could cover the land of the planet with fair, honest, and reliable insraments you would still not be measureing the air above the oceans. I understand that your planet, Earth, has a lot of ocean coverage. 🙂
One thing this shows to me is that humans have short memories. Let me give you an example familiar to many people. When Hurricane Katrina was coming toward New Orleans, how many people took the warning seriously? Far too many people stayed, for reasons I won’t get into. People in the area forgot how powerful hurricanes can be, so they did not take the threat seriously. The result has the great catastrophe that occurred. This is not isolated. Florida had about a 10 year lull in hurricane strikes, in that 10 years people forgot about Hurricane Andrew.
People have short memories.
MartinW is right about Wyndham’s letter. His facts may be sound and his intention seems admirable, but the tone is rude, intemperate and shrill. It could be a significant setback to the cause he (presumably) supports. It’s unfortunate that he appears not to have any sensible associates who can provide measured advice before he fires off such missives.
Interesting that 1817 would be the year following the infamous ‘year without a summer’ in North America and Europe.’ Was Arctic warming a counter-response to that extreme event, an attempt by the atmosphere to restore the sweet sleep of equilibium?
“I have followed the issue since around 1974”
Interesting….in 1977 hansen was talking ice age, not global warming.
“Wade (05:04:43) :
One thing this shows to me is that humans have short memories. Let me give you an example familiar to many people. When Hurricane Katrina was coming toward New Orleans, how many people took the warning seriously? Far too many people stayed, for reasons I won’t get into. People in the area forgot how powerful hurricanes can be, so they did not take the threat seriously. The result has the great catastrophe that occurred. This is not isolated. Florida had about a 10 year lull in hurricane strikes, in that 10 years people forgot about Hurricane Andrew.
People have short memories.”
Human memories are short however, we still use human timeframes to measure geological and planetary timeframes (Since records began etc, circa 150 years).
And forget they live in a basin, a flood plain at that, with man-made (Poorly made as it turns out) levees. You *WILL* get flooded. Just like the people’s of Pompei got smothered in AD 79, it *WILL* happen again to those in Naples, one day.
“Joseph (04:58:50) :
Can anyone point me to a short list of reasons that man-caused global warming is so much fake-science? I have followed the issue since around 1974 and have seen a lot of the argument but it seems that these days the hysterical and fraudulent claims come 90 miles a minute. (bad metaphor, I know)
Another question while I have your attention. Why is the data from satellites not used for this debate? You can measure the entire planet from orbit rather than just airports in big cities. Heck, even if you could cover the land of the planet with fair, honest, and reliable insraments you would still not be measureing the air above the oceans. I understand that your planet, Earth, has a lot of ocean coverage. :-)”
You need to study physics more to discover why Co2 absolutely cannot “force” this “catasrophic climate change” aka Al Gore and the IPCC . I suggest you read the many posts of some of the posties here to discover that. When you do you will be enlightened.
1819-20: In command of the HECLA, William Edward Parry leads his first expedition in search of the Northwest Passage. Lt. Matthew Liddon is second in command aboard the GRIPER. A Parliamentary Act passed in 1818 “authorized the [payment of] … five thousand pounds to the officers and men of the first ship to cross the 110th meridian of west longitude to the north of America by sailing within the Arctic Circle.” Parry was the first to qualify when they proceeded westwards along what is now called Parry Channel, passing 110° West longitude in September 1819. They subsequently reach and name Melville Island after the First Lord of the Admiralty.
http://www.south-pole.com/arctic00.htm
The Royal Society, like UK politicians, is so out of touch with reality it has become a bad joke. Maybe they should take a look in their archives once in a while so they can see climate history repeating itself…