Statement on Arctic Climate Change from the President of the Royal Society

The Royal Society

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.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Arctic, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

139 Responses to Statement on Arctic Climate Change from the President of the Royal Society

  1. Steve (Paris) says:

    “…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.

  2. Steve (Paris) says:

    …but then I read it again and spotted the date. Doh!

  3. Telboy says:

    Plus ca change … plus c’est la meme chose….

  4. MartinW says:

    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.

  5. jeroen says:

    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.

  6. kim says:

    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.
    ======================================

  7. Mike Borgelt says:

    As the Royal Society appears to be impervious to logic and reason, ridicule appears to be the only method left. Let’s roll!

  8. Dodgy Geezer says:

    “..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…)

  9. Juraj V. says:

    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.

  10. Skeptic Tank says:

    … also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.’

    That’s small consolation to the self-imposed intercourse of cap & trade.

  11. John Finn says:

    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.

  12. Richard111 says:

    Seems to be quite a discrepancy between DMI Polar Temperature and NPEO at:

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/

  13. brazil84 says:

    “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.

  14. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Wasn’t the Dalton Minimum happening around then?

  15. Chris Long says:

    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.”

  16. stephen skinner says:

    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.

  17. Joseph says:

    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. :-)

  18. Wade says:

    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.

  19. Robin Guenier says:

    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.

  20. Arthur Glass says:

    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?

  21. Steven Hill says:

    “I have followed the issue since around 1974″

    Interesting….in 1977 hansen was talking ice age, not global warming.

  22. Patrick Davis says:

    “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.

  23. Patrick Davis says:

    “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.

  24. Shawn Whelan says:

    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

  25. UK Sceptic says:

    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…

  26. Craig Allen says:

    For how many years would the Arctic ice have to trend down before it would be considered to not be a short term fluctuation?

  27. Pofarmer says:

    Joe Bastardi gives a pretty good interview on the NA Summer, what he expects for the coming winter, and his views on Global Climate Change.

    http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?collection=weather&video=JOE71409&lineup=US

  28. rbateman says:

    John Finn (04:07:03) :

    That would be the a portion of the crazy way it works. A slighty warmer Arctic may let a few ships through in the Northwest Passage, but the Arctic is still a frozen inhospitable wasteland.
    Where did the cold go? South. Made life miserable for many, taking huge chunks out of regional agricultural productivity. If it weren’t for trade, Europe would have starved.

    Now, how about today? What would a similar failure do to today’s needs, and would there be enough to send relief? Or is the West so caught up in it’s runaway warming mantra that it has soured those who would send it help?

  29. Lloyd says:

    @ Robin Guenier (05:09:34) :

    I disagree. Logic and reason are brushed aside by these people. With a little sensationalism like this he at least has the possibility of gaining the attention of the media and the ordinary people. And if enough ordinary people start paying attention maybe we can reverse the political trend associated with this “man made” disaster.

  30. timetochooseagain says:

    I read somewhere that China and Russian are planning for Arctic Ocean warfare to get at the Oil there when AGW clears up the ice. Seems that there was something prescient about this statement:

    “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.”

    Unfortunately the “future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations” does not look bright. Politicians plan to destroy “the commerce of distant [and/or domestic] nations” for the sake of preventing such a climate change. And if they turn out to be right, while I do not believe it will be a general catastrophe, one does not look forward to the Arctic Oil Wars. The good, if ironic news, is that AGW would, if true, increase our access to hard to get at fossil fuels.

  31. rbateman says:

    Hansen may soon be talking about Ice Age again. Only this time, he might be closer to the truth, but nobody will take hime seriously because of his hysterical effects.

  32. timetochooseagain says:

    BTW Anthony, maybe you should put together a convenient compilation of all articles you have written such as these. A picture of cyclical variations in Arctic climate on multidecadal timescales may start to emerge. You might even be able to write up an article for a journal “anecdotal evidence for past cycles in Arctic climate before thermometer records” or something. :)

  33. Ron de Haan says:

    GreenPeace, after reading the letter of the Royal Society to a ship and went to the Arctic Ice Sea to see the increddible melt with their own eyes.

    Unfortunetly they were forced to flee when they got stuck in ice with a thickness of more then 6 meters:

    Monday, July 27, 2009
    Midsummer farce in the Arctic: Greenpeace flees ice “way thicker than anything we can break”
    Climate Rescue Weblog

    The helicopter gets off the deck at 0800. The ship’s main engine starts 20 minutes later.

    The Arctic Ocean pack ice has invaded Nares Strait. It is old (called multi-year) sea ice, and averages six meters thick. This is way thicker than anything we can break with Arctic Sunrise. So before it can trap us in Hall Basin, we escape south. The crew all walks around telling each other that this is good, as we are all bored with Petermann.

    The sea ice is chasing us into the bay of large icebergs. The east side of Kane Basin is the Humboldt Glacier. Being a grounded glacier, the pieces that break off are huge. As a result, Kane Basin is littered with icebergs. There are maybe 70 that we can see from here. It’s a real contrast to Petermann, where the glacier is floating. From a distance the glacier ice breaking off from Petermann does not seem very different from the sea ice that forms over the winter. But these icebergs from Humboldt are ten to twenty meters high.

    For the first time in this trip we do some real icebreaking. The ice is mostly first-year sea ice, sprinkled with pieces of glacier ice, which is much harder. It does not look very thick, and seem to be 50% melt pools, some of which go right through. At first, it is pretty easy going. With 90% power on, we are just able to break through the 50cm ice. Then we have to stop, back up one ship length, and charge at it again. And again. And again. As we cut alongside a large ‘berg, I understand Arne’s explanation of ice under pressure. Here is ebb tide is pushing the floating sea ice against the grounded berg. The ice stops cracking ahead of us. We have to back up every boat length, and ram it again.

    This explains Arne’s first rule of icebreaking. Avoid it. Always look for a lead or a way to get around it. Icebreaking is time consuming and sucks down tons of fuel.

    http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/07/midsummer-farce-in-arctic-greenpeace.html

  34. Patrick Davis says:

    Ron, it is supposed to be ice free don’t you know. I mean, Al Gore is right, isn’t he?

  35. timetochooseagain says:

    rbateman (06:15:29) : A case of the scientist who cried warming? LOL.

  36. Smokey says:

    Craig Allen (05:55:42) :

    For how many years would the Arctic ice have to trend down before it would be considered to not be a short term fluctuation?

    If you are discussing global warming, you must include the Antarctic: click.

    As you can see, global ice cover is increasing.

  37. Don S. says:

    Some of the replies to Wyndham’s letter lead me to wonder if colon detox really is hype. This is a communication among peers the likes of whom most of us have never met. Old schoolboy rhetoric, if you will. Get over it, the message has been transmitted and received.

  38. NoAstronomer says:

    “Icebreaking is time consuming and sucks down tons of fuel.”

    WIDIMITWEED

    I can only assume that they’re trying to make damn sure they don’t get rescued by an oil tanker – by getting stuck in the ice where the tankers can’t get to them.

  39. Alan the Brit says:

    It is perhaps true that Wyndham’s approach was unwise. As a professional person, one should avoid facetious sarcasm in any verbal or written work. However, this letter was very amusing, & how does one address people who bury their heads in the sand at anything resembling contradicting a “political stance”, of evidence of cooling global temps, & any other contradicting evidence of no AGW, who arrogantly & dismissively & patronisingly respond with the bland & trite tosh dishing out the same old story lines, like I got from the BBC over Roger Harrabin’s gutless & ball-less cave in to the threats of eco-activist Jo Abbess (a Christian I understand but not the type I see in my Church – such actions are most frowned upon) or was it Abyss! They endorsed the mantra of “better reflecting the science”! which she wanted him to do. Sometimes in the real world one has to get tough & sarcastic with these people who promote a lie, perpetuate that lie, & ignore & dismiss others who are seeking the truth, all in the apparant name of the greater good (for who?). Still it was amusing & I agree that he will probaby receive nothing in the way of a response, rather as he has intimated that the RS has been behaving of late in many ways!

    While I’m at it, we know they’re lying when they trot out this bovine faeces by telling us stories, yes, actually they admit to telling us “storylines”, it’s a term I’ve heard time & time again, but not from scientists, but from tv writers & producers of Soap Operas & other tv progs for crying out loud, when they explain why the plot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I ask you, what is the scientific world coming to? They actually confess it, but maintain it’s the truth, & expect us to believe them.

  40. pyromancer76 says:

    Great quote Anthony, Phil Bratley (and TonyB in earlier post on Arctic?). Mysteries always lead us on. The science is not settled; climate always changes; CO2 is not a driver; CO2 is essential for life on Earth.

    Great letter from R.C.E. Wyndham to the current President of The Royal Society, Lord Rees. It ROARS. We need more ridiculing of “emperors (or those trying to become global rulers) without clothes.”

    Interesting part about “child abuse on a daily basis…schoolchildren psychologically damaged… by catastrophist brainwashing with not a scintilla of real world evidence.” Obama chaired an NGO on education reform authored by Billy Ayers with millions from the Annenberg Foundation. They refused to give grants to school projects that increased students knowledge of science, among other subjects. Guess what they spent the money for?

    By the way, who is R.C.E. Wyndham? I can only find his name as secretary of the Sage Group in a 1998 paper that I could not view. My hat is off to him. Every politician, every head of schools, every media president and corporate owner, every president of a university, and many others should have this letter addressed to them.

  41. Nogw says:

    Your lordship should realize that you are being deceived by wrongful informations regarding those ice extensions far north, which, as shown by Anthony Watts publisher of the most reliable scientific blog in the world, Wattsupwiththat, are the same as ever, so your lordship must not worry about it.
    You must be aware that all this scam was originally concocted by the same minds and organizations which atempted in the past against royalty and nobility.

  42. John Wright says:

    stephen skinner (04:43:08) :
    “I read that the Russians are intent on opening up Arctic routes, and they are not the only ones.”

    I was led to believe during a visit to Yakutia (now the Sakha Republic) in 2003 that the early Russian trade counters were set up on the River Lena some time in the 17th Century (smack-bang in the Dalton Minimum) using the Arctic sea route . Anyone else have any information on this?

    In response to John Finn. Go visit Piers Corbyn’s site http://www.weatheraction.com/

  43. matt v. says:

    According to NSIDC, there are no reliable ice records before 1953 . They recently told me
    “NSIDC is showing the satellite data record for many reasons. This is the data we archive and distribute, it is the most reliable record of sea ice that currently exists, and other observations only allow you to go back until about 1953 with any confidence (the earlier records are mostly based on climatology). As far as the 1953-1979 record the ice extent was decreasing from 1953 to 1961 after which it showed a steep increase for about 4 years.”

    If you look at FigS4 of the attached report, one can see this . To my eyes , the ice extent was relatively constant until about 1976 when there was a
    major climate shift in the Pacific and ENSO/PDO went warm. The melting of
    ice increased after that and when AMO also went warm in 1995, the melting
    increased some more . Both of these cycles are expected to go negative or
    cool for the next 2-3 decades and I project the ice will increase
    accordingly. It has not happened yet but traces of the cold weather and
    severe winters have already started during the past winter and past 12
    months. For 5 months already this year[Jan -May] AMO and PDO were both cool.
    Cold records were set all over North America . Even Hudson Bay ice stayed
    into June.

    We only have good ice records when the global climate has been warm, namely 1976-2008 and also when it was cooler 1950-1976. When it was cooler, the ice extent was higher and when it was warmer, the ice extent diminished . This what one would expect anyway

    http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html

  44. pyromancer76 says:

    Patrick Davis (05:32:22) and Wade (05:04:43) : Yes, P. Davis is absolutely right; if you choose to live in a floodplane or a volcanic area, “it” will happen again. One important point that I wish everyone would remember about Category 5 Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans: the damage was manageable until the levees gave way. Why did they give way? Because the Army Corps of Engineers did not build them to “code” (the required strength). Everyone in New Orleans and Louisana knew about the “problem”, but for decades refused to do anything about it — you know, government attention and taxes going to solve real problems rather than to corruption. A similar catastrophe will happen to California’s water system around the Sacramento Delta someday, not up to “code”.

    Regarding New Orleans, an engineer exploring the materials that were being used to repair and strengthen the levees stated: Still not up to “code”. “It” will happen again — and again the worst damage will not be caused by a hurricane. But catastrophists want to tell untruths.

  45. John Peter says:

    I actually copied R.C.E. Wyndham’s pdf letter to Peter Lilley MP here in UK because I thought it wrong to leave him off the distribution. In any event I am sorry that the debate has been turned into a for and against CO2 as driver of “climate change” i.e. AGW. Such authorities as Dr Spencer and Lintzen promote the idea that man made CO2 could account for around 20% of any global warming, the rest being due to natural climate change. I rather think that an informed debate should be about the distribution of any change between natural forcings, man made CO2 and other man made forcings such as aerosols, soots, heat generated by human activities such as forest burnings, motors/engines and other machinery, heating of houses and a host of other activities generated by all 6 billion of us. It is so regrettable that the main debate focuses on the pro/con man made CO2 and thus ignoring a lot of papers touching on other potential forcings including man made ones other than CO2. A lot of what follows in the slipstream of proposed CO2 reduction is good in itself such as cleaner coal powered power plants, more fuel efficient motors in cars, trucks, ships and planes as well as better insulated homes. These are obvious improvements regardless of the CO2 debate. They will generally lead to better health through a cleaner environment and air. The key is that it is focused on real issues and not overdone so that we in the western world are being forced into a state of second rate countries.

  46. Pamela Gray says:

    Some thoughts about ice measurement

    1. Is it just me or has the Wilken’s Ice shelf re-constituted itself?

    2. The current Arctic ice behavior, area, and extent is closely following wind patterns in and out of the area. It is not abnormally warm and many ice areas of the Arctic are at average levels, such as the Arctic Area proper.

    3. Much of the discrepancy in ice measurements between the mean and current measures may be due to mixed data sets in the mean (old poor pixel counts mixed with improved resolution pixel counts) compared to current improved resolution only pixel counts. I say this because the areas that have significant contact with land appear to be the ones showing up as below average. Pixel resolution was notoriously poor for these ice-land contact areas in the past. This reminds me of the sunspot counts and the discrepancy in count between old and new. The historical data set making up the mean may be contaminated.

  47. Douglas DC says:

    I read many years ago-during the great Ice Age scare,that it was postulated that the Arctic was Ice-free,giving a source of water vapor for the great ice sheets.Also the colder it got,(which wasn’t much) themore the polar ice retreated.-Feeding the Ice sheets.-Anyone ever hear of this,I can’t cite the source as i don’t recall where I read it.
    I think it was Scientific American,about 1975…

  48. Don S. says:

    Wyndham has declared war.

    Wars are the results of failures of diplomacy. Diplomacy, you will recall, is practiced by men sent abroad to lie for their country. When these lies become particularly egregious and the host country can no longer ignore them, war begins. Science is at war with AGW.

    Science is usefully conducted in a diplomatic atmosphere which promotes the exchange of ideas. Scientists are not preconditioned to suspect fraud when someone who is properly credentialled advances a theory or a study or a conclusion on a question. There are millions of examples of mainstream science being very slow to squash patently false claims by other scientists. Certain genetic studies and cold fusion spring readily to mind. Scientific discourse is diplomatic and diplomats don’t fight wars. Fraudulent claims by scientists leave other scientists at a loss about what exactly to do.

    Wyndham knows what to do. You yell Bullshit at the top of your lungs and marshall your intellect to defeat the frauds, using any weapon you have or can fabricate. This is no time to parse the language of science, it is a time to fight.

  49. Robin Guenier says:

    @ Lloyd (06:10:05):

    You might conceivably be right if there was the remotest chance of the MSM publishing it. But there isn’t. And, even if they did, they would probably use it to show just what intemperate fools these deniers are. No, if you have a strong case (as sceptics have), it’s always best to make it in strong, calm sober language: it puts your opponent on the back foot and makes it harder for them to avoid a reply.

    I believe the alarmists have made a bad mistake in so often responding to “deniers” in a rude, insulting manner. We should not make the same mistake.

  50. Nogw says:

    matt v. (07:31:27) :Obviously you have not read the document, as this reproduces the following:
    ‘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.’

    The statement was made on 20 November 1817 to their Lordships of the Admiralty

  51. Hames Jansen says:

    snip – I will not have you changing handles, stick with one, especially one that is not this one. – Anthony

  52. Galloyd says:

    I strongly recommend that everyone read Chapter 2 of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report: http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Ch02_Final.pdf.
    (if the link does not work google “ACIA Arctic”).

    This gives a fascinating historical overview of the Arctic Climate over geological time scales. However, the most interesting period to me (and I would think to all of us deniers) is the Holocene – approximately the past 11,000 years during which the Arctic has experienced higher and lower temperatures than present, higher rates of warming, tree lines many hundreds of Kms closer to the pole etc. etc. Read this and you will be hard pressed to believe that there is any real Arctic evidence for AGW (although, politically correctly enough, the ACIA still talks at length about AGW in other chapters of the report and is clearly a ‘believer’, it is unable to demonstrate convincing evidence)

    Interestingly, the IPCC in FAR says of the ACIA report that it “has substantially improved the understanding of the impacts of climate change in the Arctic, is a benchmark for regional impact assessments, and may become the basis for a sustainable management plan for the Arctic”. See Chapter 15 of Working Group II’s report to the FAR.

  53. wiellatunc says:

    output geoengineering climatic required indicate figure [url=http://www.kirotv.com]overwhelming end decreases trends[/url] http://hughesnet.com

  54. Pamela Gray says:

    The primary way that ice sheets build to sizes greater than the historic mean over long periods is lack of summer melt. This is true for every kind of ice: sheets, land, and sea. Summer temps are controlled by ocean temps. Colder waters bring cooler summers. There is speculation that these colder waters came from warmer waters, as in sudden ice melt in warm waters that recharged a string of long lasting La Nina’s. Others say that it is a re-energized trade wind that stays around for a long time that does it. Regardless, in order for sustained ice growth, you can’t have hot summers.

  55. E.M.Smith says:

    Per arctic ice melt in summer, in my comment in the GISS Step1 thread:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/22/giss-step-1-does-it-influence-the-trend/#comment-164738

    I pointed out that I’d made a benchmark for measuring GIStemp by doing summations of “global temperature” in the GHCN data (unadorned) and comparing those to the summations of the same data post GIStemp additions and modifications. One of the sidebar issues it showed up was that “Global Warming” happens substantially only in winter, per the data.

    (Clever stuff, this CO2, only causing warming in winter months! Wonder how it does that?…)

    So the “summer melt” of the arctic can’t be due to the “higher summer temperatures” in the data… since the summers are not warmer…

    An excerpt from the other comment:

    First up, the “GLOBAL” temperature shows a pronounced seasonal trend. This is a record from after STEP1, just before the zonalizing:

    GAT in year : 1971 3.60 6.20 8.20 12.90 16.50 19.30 20.90 20.70 17.90 13.90 9.50 5.60 14.10

    The first number is the year, then 12 monthly averages, then the final number is the global average (for the whole year). [...]

    It seems a bit “odd” to me that the “Globe” would be 17C colder in January than it is in July. Does it not have hemispheres that balance each other out? In fairness, the sea temps are added in in STEP4_5 and the SH is mostly sea. But it’s pretty clear that the “Global” record is not very global at the half way point in GIStemp.

    Next (record below) is from GHCN, (the second record below)to GHCN with added (Antarctic, Hohenp…., etc.) and with the pre 1880′s tossed out and the first round of the Reference Station Method. The third record is as the data leaves STEP1 with it’s magic sauce. These are the total of all years in the data set. (i.e. the naive case of just averaging all data)

    Average of all data for a given month in the GHCN data as processed
    Last field, far right, is average of all months averages (GAT over all time):

    2.6 3.9 7.3 11.8 15.8 18.9 20.7 20.3 17.4 13.1 7.9 3.9 11.97
    2.6 3.8 7.3 11.7 15.6 18.7 20.5 20.0 17.2 13.0 7.9 3.9 11.85
    3.2 4.5 7.9 12.1 15.9 19.0 20.9 20.5 17.7 13.5 8.5 4.5 12.35

    It is pretty clear from inspection of these three that the temperature is raised by GIStemp. It’s also pretty clear that STEP0 does not do much of it (in fact, some data points go down – Adding the Antarctic can do that!). The “cooking” only really starts with STEP1.

    The big surprise for me was not the 0.38 C rise in the Total GAT (far right) but the way that winters get warmed up! July and August hardly change (0.2 and 0.3 respectively) yet January has a full 0.6 C rise as do November, December, Febrary, and March.

    GIStemp induces more change in the winter data than in the summer.

    Then I looked at changes in temperatures over the years:

    YEAR – 12 monthly averages of all temperature data in set – GAT for year.

    1776 -1.4 2.3 4.2 7.2 12.1 18.2 19.7 19.3 15.6 9.5 3.0 -0.4 9.89
    1881 3.5 4.1 6.4 10.9 15.3 18.2 20.2 19.8 17.2 11.8 6.4 3.4 11.43
    1971 3.6 6.2 8.2 12.9 16.5 19.3 20.9 20.7 17.9 13.9 9.5 5.6 14.10
    2008 8.3 8.3 11.1 14.6 17.6 19.9 20.9 20.9 18.8 15.5 11.0 8.8 15.90

    So take a look at the January column. 9.7 C of rise. July: 1.2C.
    December: 9.2C while August is 1.6C.

    Somehow all the “warming” in the data is concentrated into the winter months. Our “Global Warming”, per the data, is really “Global warmer winters with consistent nice summers”… At least, that’s what’s in the data.

    IMHO, this is a major issue for the CO2 thesis. Why is it not doing anything in summer?
    In the comment after that one I speculated that perhaps it’s the result of adding thermometers to the Southern Hemisphere in the 1800′s and then removing them from Siberia at the end of the USSR.

    E.M.Smith (03:59:22) :
    Hmmm…. A bit further pondering….
    [...]

    Could GW all just be where in the world is Carmen Sandiego’s Thermometer?
    8-)

    And I would remind folks:

    “Averages hide more than they reveal. -emsmith”

    So perhaps this is why Hansen et al don’t want to look at the monthly GAT, but just at The One True Number: The Annual Global Average Temperature.

    If the data, and these averages, are to be believed, then “summer melt” is not due to higher temps, and any reduction in arctic cover is more due to warmer winters and ocean / wind currents.

    BTW, I would speculate that the tendency of GIStemp to raise the values of the fields with the most range (cold months) more than those with less range (warm months) argues for a systematic failure that amplifies any differences in the data…

  56. I was looking to see when the Port of Churchill was due to open, Which I cannot confirm yet, but I ran into the the July 26th Canadian Ice Service sea ice charts for Hudson’s Bay and there seems to be a rather larger discrepancy between NSIDC and the Canadian Ice Service. Now I am going through the back years to see if this is common due to methodology.

    I posted the same day images on my site as a place holder while I gather the data. Does anyone know if this has been done anywhere so I could reference it?

    Canada has also outlined its Strengthened Arctic Strategy recently Canada Arctic Strategy Announced It includes a Defense and Economic Plan, also a statement of Sovereignty over the Arctic Region.

  57. Nogw says:

    Your Lordship should take into account the absurdity of global warmers allegation, as to affirm that our atmosphere is capable of containing such a big amount of energy, as the volumetric heat capacity of the atmosphere, being with or without that trace gas which we all exhale and plants enjoy breathing is (in British thermal unit th per gallon -Imperial- degree Fahrenheit) 0.003106853 Btuth gal-1 oF-1 while that of water is 10.02721 Btu th gal-1 oF-1, so this being 3227.4491261736554642269846690526 times than that of the Air, at sea level pressure.
    So by no means it is possible for the gas mix of the atmosphere to hold enough heat in it, as thou lordship has for sure experienced when being in the desert or when being at an eclipse of the sun.

  58. Pamela Gray says:

    See the following paper for the source of my thoughts on “improved resolution” and other issues that I think contaminate the mean and make current ice area and extent not readily compared to the mean.

    https://abstracts.congrex.com/scripts/jmevent/abstracts/FCXNL-09A02a-1663927-1-SeaIceRemoteSensing_WhitePaper.pdf

  59. John Finn says:

    John Wright (07:30:03) :

    In response to John Finn. Go visit Piers Corbyn’s site http://www.weatheraction.com

    Why? Most of Piers stuff is nonsense.

  60. Pamela Gray says:

    Greenpeace may be trying to get through combined and compacted first year ice, and multi-year ice they think are bergs. The wind pattern would suggest that all levels of sea ice are being compacted into the Arctic, as well as ice bergs from land, saving lots of 1st year ice from melting further South but making it look like it is. It isn’t leaving the Arctic, it is going further into the Arctic.

  61. Bill Marsh says:

    related but OT. I usually check the NSIDC to look at both the Arctic & Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. I find today that I can access the Arctic http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png but not the Antarctic http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png. The Antarctic .png requests a userID PW authentication.

    Wonder what gives?

  62. Sloane says:

    Great letter!

    But who is R.C.E. Wyndham ?

  63. Bill Marsh says:

    LOL, now it’s back to normal display. Must have been a hiccup in the Apache server.

  64. Pamela Gray says:

    Summer melt happens to a larger degree when wind sends ice out of the Arctic to warmer temps both in the air and underneath. Winter ice can rebuild to normal levels and then slip below average during the summer because of this pattern. There are also currents in the Arctic that can start and stop, and turn cool or warm based on what is happening in the PDO and AMO. Still, if you want normal to below normal cold winter temps to build up ice, you have to have less and less summer melt.

  65. John Finn says:

    rbateman (06:09:49) :

    John Finn (04:07:03) :

    That would be the a portion of the crazy way it works. A slighty warmer Arctic may let a few ships through in the Northwest Passage, but the Arctic is still a frozen inhospitable wasteland.

    Well that isn’t the way it worked between 1910-1940, 1940-1975 and 1975 to date. In each of those periods when the earth was warming the arctic warmed 4 times as much as anywhere else and when it was cooling the arctic was cooled 4 times as much as anywhere else.

    Where did the cold go? South. Made life miserable for many, taking huge chunks out of regional agricultural productivity. If it weren’t for trade, Europe would have starved.

    CET shows plenty of periods that were just as cold as the Dalton Minimum – so does DeBilt. Uppsala shows a cooling trend which started after the Dalton Minimum. Crop failure and starvation were not unique to the early 19th century.

  66. E.M.Smith says:

    pyromancer76 (07:54:01) : One important point that I wish everyone would remember about Category 5 Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans: the damage was manageable until the levees gave way. Why did they give way? Because the Army Corps of Engineers did not build them to “code” (the required strength).

    Just a minor point of clarification: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed a Cat 5 rated levee system decades ago (about the Kennedy / Johnson years, IIRC) and it was congress who decided that a Cat 3 levee was what they could “afford”. The Corps can only build what the congress funds them to build…

    In later years (Clinton era, I think) New Orleans was alloted money for levee repairs, that they chose to redirect to other “social programs”.

    The problems with the N.O. Levees are directly the responsibility of the politicians making very bad funding decisions. The Corps is ready, willing, and able to make any strength levee system you want to pay for…

    Regarding New Orleans, an engineer exploring the materials that were being used to repair and strengthen the levees stated: Still not up to “code”. “It” will happen again — and again the worst damage will not be caused by a hurricane. But catastrophists want to tell untruths.

    Yes, but it’s not a “poor materials” issue, it’s a “rebuilding to Cat 3 strength” decision. Once again the Corps said “we can make it a Cat 5 system” and they were TOLD “Repair it to Cat 3 strength. We’ll get back to you on that Cat 5 money question.”…

    When you order raw eggs, don’t blame the cook for undercooking them…

  67. MattN says:

    “Eighteen hundred and froze to death” was 1816, the year before that was written….interesting.

  68. Robin Guenier says:

    @ Don S. (08:09:13):

    I dislike analogy but, yes, it may be a war. But, in war, it’s foolish to mount an all out frontal attack when your opponent has overwhelming strength (in this case, the scientific establishment, the MSM and the politicians). No, the best way is a combination of guile (working underground – e.g. using the internet – to influence established opinion, bringing key people over to your side), building the confidence of the local population (i.e. the general public – showing them it’s respectable to hold sceptical views) and, as in the present case, well-directed powerful weapons such as soberly argued letters (= roadside bombs?) that can be deployed at minimum risk.

  69. timetochooseagain says:

    MattN (09:11:16) : Yes, volcanoes can cause sudden and dramatic but transient cooling, can’t they? Shame that we have no global thermometer record going back that far…Still, one would think it would take longer than a year for the post Tambora recovery to set in-which again shows just how dramatic regional variations can be!

  70. Tim Ball says:

    The first person to bring the letter to the Admiralty by the Royal Society to the attention of climatologists was Cynthia Wilson in an article titled, “The Little Ice Age on Eastern Hudson/James Bay: The Summer Weather and Climate at Great WHale, Fort George and Eastmain, 1814 to 1821, as Derived from Hudson’s Bay Company Records.” published in Syllogeus 55, Climatic Change in Canada 5. Critical Periods in the Quaternary Climatic History of Northern North America. editor C.R Harington. I put the quote on the internet through John Daly’s website and it has proliferated from there.

    The Climatic Change in Canada series was published by the National Museum of Canada and produced the articles presented by many scientists around topics at a series of annual conferences held in Ottawa Canada. The entire project was organized by Dr. Harington under the title, “National Museum of Natural Sciences Project on Climatic Change in Canada During the Past 20,000 years.”

    One major conference in this series that I helped organize with Dr Harington and Cynthia Wilson in 1992 was a specific examination of “The Year Without a Summer?: World Climate in 1816″. The proceedings were edited by C.R.Harington and are still available from the Canadian Museum of Nature.

    When we planned the conference we realized global temperatures were already dropping at the end of the 18th century and there was a coincidence with the Dalton Minimum. I was able to convince my colleagues that it was necessary to put the singular year in the broader context, hence most of the papers presented are more than an examination of that specific year. In addition, I was aware of the growing interest in the relationship between sunspot activity and global temperatures triggered earlier by John Eddy’s publication “The Case of the Missing Sunspots” in “Scientific American” in 1977. I had already identified the relationship between drought cycles and the 22 year sunspot cycle in my doctoral work and experienced the resistance to new information. I ran the risk of failing the defense of my thesis because the examining committee argued for its removal and I fought for its inclusion. It remained. As a result we invited John Eddy to be the keynote speaker. Unfortunately, he was unable to attend but did provide the keynote paper titled “Before Tambora: The Sun and Climate, 1790-1830.”

    A second important component of the conference was a half day workshop I proposed and organized with the help of Cynthia Wilson. We printed up very large blank maps of the world and asked all participants to put on the map their assessment of the temperature and precipitation conditions for their area of study. We did this by having categories labelled from ++ for very hot through to — for very cold and (++) for very wet to (–) for very dry. The final map was then organized and summarized by Wilson and is included in the proceedings publication.

    The summary is an extensive review of all the findings presented in the individual papers and gives as comprehensive a view as is known of global weather conditions for 1816. It is clear that as Wilson notes, “The evidence suggest that in the Northern Hemisphere, the general circulation was marked in summer by a few preferred, persistent, large scale flow patterns at the 500-mb (50kPa) level, whose stalled surface systems dominated the weather for protracted periods.” In other words there was a dramatic increase in amplitude of the Jet Stream that caused blocking of the normal west to east migration of the Rossby Waves. This resulted in an increase in duration of the average 4 to 6 week pattern of weather in the middle and higher latitudes so weather patterns persisted for most of the summer. It also meant a significant shift in the wind patterns with an increase of northerly and southerly winds as the wave amplitude increased. Based on what we saw with the impact of wind and ocean current patterns on sea ice as identified by NASA for 2007
    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
    it is undoubtedly this that caused the ice shifts reported to the Admiralty in the Royal Society letter. As a matter of interest the letter was proposed and recorded in the Minutes of the Royal Society but I understand was never sent.

    Finally we held these annual conferences for several years at the Canadian Museum with a different area of focus within the Quaternary each year. Specialist from paleogeology, paleoclimate, dendrochronology, dendroclimatology, glaciology, palynology, and several other areas derived a great deal because often a problem confronting one area had already been resolved in another, but because of the narrowness of specialization in the generalist study of climatology they did not read other specialists literature.

    I was elected president for the last year of the conferences. Within months the portion of the funding provided by Environment Canada was canceled because they decided global warming was the issue and some of the participants at the conferences, including myself, were already expressing reservations about the science of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. Of course, we were a threat if only because we knew how quickly and how much climate changes in short time periods – something in itself sufficient to undermine the AGW claims. It was my first major experience with the interference of politics into the scientific climate debate.

    Sadly, I have watched over the years as others have gradually reached the point of understanding we were at twenty years ago, although actually many still have a long way to go. I recommend people go back and read the proceedings to learn how far along the trail we were of at least identifying the problems just now getting attention, but even then this attention is only from those who are still snidely labeled skeptics or deniers.

  71. Paulus Butt says:

    The previously published article here on WUWT : “Historic Variation in Arctic Sea Ice” cited a new book at: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/ discussing the Arctic Warming from 1919 to 1940 that was already regarded as a problem back in 1938 according the following abstract :

    >>In recent years attention is being directed more and more towards a problem which may possibly prove of great significance in human affairs, the rise of temperatures in the northern hemisphere, and especially in the arctic regions. >> ( Brooks, C.E.P., “The Warming Arctic”, The Meteorological Magazine, 1938, p.29-32.);

    and that recent paper relate the early Arctic warming in the 1920s partly or primarily to:
    · natural variability in the weather system;
    · atmospheric variability or “climate noise”;
    · natural fluctuations internal to the climate system;
    · considerable internal variations;
    · feedbacks internal to the climate system.
    http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/chapter_6.html , Ch.6, Cc), although the C.E.P Brooks article already mentioned:
    __The Spitsbergen branch of the North Atlantic
    Current has greatly increased in strength and the
    surface layer of cold water in the Arctic Ocean
    has decreased from 200 to 100 metres thickness.
    __Attributing the recent period of warm winters to
    an increase in the strength of the atmospheric
    circulation only pushes the problem one stage
    further back, for we should still have to account
    for the change in circulation.
    __Moreover, it is almost equally plausible to
    regard the change of circulation as a result of
    the warming of the Arctic, for open ice
    conditions in the Arctic Ocean are favorable to
    the formation of depression.
    __More probably the increased circulation is both
    cause and effect of the warmed Arctic.

    While it might be difficult to assess the situation back in 1817 it should be possible with regard to what happened 90 years ago, which seems to corresponds approximately with the conclusion of the book.

  72. Dodgy Geezer says:

    @Joseph “…Why is the data from satellites not used for this debate?…”

    Because it diverges from the only true oracle, which is GISS….

  73. David Watt says:

    I also wrote to Lord Rees recently telling him that The Royal Society’s proud claim of “350 years of excellence in science” would soon ring very hollow indeed if he didn’t open his eyes and actually look at the science of climate change.
    It is fascinating to learn that the President 190 years ago was equally misguided.
    Come to think of it I seem to remember that Robert Hooke (another early President of the Royal Society) dealt rather shamefully with Harrison’s work on longitude.
    It warrants a bit of research. Perhaps a blinkered conservatism goes with the job and the Royal Society has always been a good friend to bad science

  74. Fred from Canuckistan . . . says:

    I worked “up north” in the summer of 1973 – did a DEW Line tour and my job had me flying back and forth along the Line from Alaska to Greenland. I took hundreds of pictures out the window of the F227 on the Laterals and there was much open water. I remember thinking “What happens if we have an engine problem right now”.

    The polar ice sheet expands a bit & then shrinks a bit, so no worries, no hysteria needed. Except if you are trying to fool and/or scare people into making donations to their Organizations so they can “Save the XXXXXXXX”.

  75. Douglas DC (08:00:39) : “I read many years ago-during the great Ice Age scare,#that it was postulated that the Arctic was Ice-free,#giving a source of water vapor for the great ice sheets.#Also the colder it got,#(which wasn’t much) the#more the polar ice retreated.- Feeding the Ice sheets.-Anyone ever hear of this,#I can’t cite the source as i don’t recall where I read it. I think it was Scientific American,#about 1975…”

    More likely, it’s the other way around. Water evaporating outside the Arctic circle is the source for Arctic sea ice. When the temperatures elsewhere around the globe plunged, less water vapor made its way northward to form ice. Thus the cold winters of the Dalton caused the polar ice to eventually diminish.

  76. Pamela Gray says:

    The source of Arctic sea ice is Arctic waters, not water vapor. Sea ice forms from salt water but as it freezes, the salty brine is expelled leaving only fresh water ice behind. You can even drink from ice melt pools that have not made contact or been splashed with sea water.

  77. John Finn says:

    Tim Ball (09:27:12) :

    When we planned the conference we realized global temperatures were already dropping at the end of the 18th century and there was a coincidence with the Dalton Minimum.

    Except that the temperature decline began in the ~1780s which was almost 20 years before the start of the 2 weak Dalton cycles.

  78. Pamela Gray says:

    By the way, that salty brine is very dense (IE heavy) and below the normal freeze point of regular sea water. It sinks like a stone and is thought to be the energy source of at least some of our oceanic circulation belt at the bottom of the ocean.

  79. Pamela Gray says:

    Another little factoid, the surface temp of Arctic sea water must be below about 28 degrees F or below -1 degrees C in order to freeze. Or there abouts. The salt makes it so.

  80. Joseph says:

    “Interesting….in 1977 hansen was talking ice age, not global warming.”

    Yes, I was educated when the next Ice Age was said to be just around the corner.

  81. Joseph says:

    “You need to study physics more to discover why Co2 absolutely cannot “force” this “catastrophic 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.”

    I already am “enlightened”, if that means I don’t buy the Al Gore scare mongering. I was asking if anyone had a short list of reasons it is all bunk to show the undecided or the brain washed. I realize some will never be convinced until there are ice storms in Havana, Cuba but I do have reason to believe that most buy the scare mongering due to thinking it is the “consensus of science” or something like that.

  82. David says:

    Pamela Gray (10:43:52) :

    Another little factoid, evaporation still happens in the Arctic, with a fog of ice crystals blowing around the surface that looks like smoke. Gotta love Deadliest Catch. :-)

  83. Allan M says:

    I find myself agreeing with Dodgy Geezer, Lloyd and Don S.

    The pompous buffoons who govern us in the UK will carry on in their deep groove so long as the sycophantic bubble of ‘hangers on’ protect them from the reality of the public. The freedom of the individual in Britain has never been advanced by being polite to the buffoons; and never by the sycophantic bubble. They haven’t even the courtesy to laugh at us. They just ignore us.

    This government has created 3000 new criminal offences since it came to office. Are we really so evil? The Irish people voted, in a referendum, to reject the Lisbon Treaty. They have been told to vote again (and get it right this time, or else).

    I can find very few now among the general public here who believe AGW. It is largely the buffoons and hangers-on, if they do believe it. We have to make it clear to them, if possible verbally, that we will not accept their “post-normal science*” or whatever jargon they invent to cover their lying. They believe we are children who can’t be trusted with the truth, and like all “do-gooders,” THEY are the only people allowed to decide what “good” is.

    As such they will hide behind their “professional” smoke screen of pomposity, if possible forever, but at least until they are made to do otherwise.

    * used by Prof Mike Hulme, University of East Anglia (where else?)

  84. MartinW says:

    I, too, would like to know more about R.C.E.Wyndham. There is someone of that name connected to The Sage Group, and he has Oxford connections as evidenced by this amusing and pointed letter to Lord Butler, posted on GreenieWatch, 31.8.08:
    http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008/04/warming-island-another-global-warming.html (second entry)

  85. norah4you says:

    This quote origin from my own homepage’s ‘Miljofragan – “Klimathotet” (Eng. Environmental question – “Climate threat”. I have used Google to translate a part regarding the Arctic History…

    “Historical data:
    The true story of Greenland’s history, when Greenland was green and exported dried fish, butter (!) and hard cheese to the Nordic Countries, directly contradicts the computer models of the Viking Period until 1551 conditions in the Arctic areas!

    Therefore, there is reason to look at the history of the Arctic Arctic history, which includes the time the Nordic Greenlanders lived in Greenland.

    More than 3,000 permanent residents lived there during that time. Last written documentation of the contact between Greenlanders and the Catholic Church goes until 1551, when I am talking not only about the papal letter. According to a contemporary document which I will present in my work: Greenland and the Greenlanders with subtitle the ‘missing’ people, [they were emergency rescued to what we now call North America's mainland in 1435 according to two contemporary sources]

    In mid 14th century, Greenlanders still was living in the west district, so there were large meadows and trees as well(!) on Greenland and open water up to eg Ruin Island. To the Ruin Island the Greenlanders sailed, if deliberate or accidental is uncertain, but the artifacts found, and maps up to 1490′s, shows that the climate in that part of the Arctic used to be warmer than now.

    There is a farm that already around 1350 was abandoned due to permafrost, which struck during the so-called. Little Ice Age. The farm known as The Farm in the sand (abbreviated GUS) was not been possible to dig out until the last 20 years of the 1900s when parts of the farm re-saved from the permafrost layer. “Most of the Viking expansion took place during what scientist refer to as the dimatic optimum of the Medieval Warm Period dated ca, A.D. 800 to 1200 (Jones 1986: McGovern 1991); a general term for warm periods that reached chere optimum at different times
    across the North Atlantic (Groves and Switsur 1991). During this time the niean annual temperature for southem Greenland was 1 to 3°C higher than today. page 40 Julie Megan Ross, Paleoethnobotanical Investigation of Garden Under Sandet,
    a Waterlogged Norse Farm Site. Western Settlement. Greenland (Kaiaallit Nunaata), University of Alberta, Department of Anthropology Edmonton. Alberta Fa11 1997
    ” end of quote from Norah4you page Environment-”Climate Change”

  86. dearieme says:

    I don’t know why Rees is worried about climate change – only a few years ago he thought we were all going to die in nanoparticle goo. He is, if I may use an Americanism, a bit goofy.

  87. TonyB says:

    Tim Ball

    In my article (that is linked to at the top of this page) I quoted the letter to The Admiralty from the Royal Society in full-this included a central part that is often missed out.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/

    Joseph Banks knew the Lords of the Admiralty well and the letter may have been presented personally to them by him- after being minuted as ‘official’ policy of the Royal Society. Whether or not the letter was physically sent, the details contained in it would have been discussed at a high level prior to it becoming ‘public’ so as to obtain advance agreement for the actions Joseph Banks wanted. This would probably have been during a convivial meeting at the Admiralty itself or at one of the London Clubs where a great deal of the ‘official’ life of Great Britain was carried out.

    The Admiralty certainly acted on the information that came via Scoresby and through Joseph Banks, so the content of the letter was undoubtedly known.

    As I previously mentioned, Scoresby was buried very close to where I live and my home town of Teignmouth contained some of the whaling fleet who gave the alert concerning melting arctic ice some 20 years prior to the letter of 1817. The British Navy was too busy fighting a series of wars to do anything about it at that time. Interestingly my own village has a sea wall that was erected in 1814 (it has a dated plaque) built to stop the encroachment of rising sea water. If there had been arctic (and glacier melt) during the period from around 1800 onwards, presumably this sea wall and arctic ice melt are connected.

    Tonyb

  88. Tim Ball says:

    John: (10:37:49)

    I didn’t say the Dalton, weak or otherwise, was the cause, I simply said there appeared to be a coincidence and that is what we wanted to investigate. I also said end of the 18th century which would encompass from 1780. Other issues were how much amplification of the cooling trend, whatever the cause, was provided by Tambora’s eruption; what effect would it have had if there was a warming trend; how long after the eruption was the signal still detectable. The objective was to provide a broader context and consider all possible causes. One of the papers presented was titled “Climatic effects of the 1783 Laki Eruption” which was known to have considerable impact especially in the Northern Hemisphere. Indeed, Benjamin Franklin saw the event as he transited between the US and France and later commented ‘….when the effect of the sun’s rays to heat the earth in these northern regions should have been greater, there existed a constant fog over all Europe, and a great part of North America…’ Although high latitude volcanoes do not usually have the impact of those at the equator Laki erupted for at least 10 months. I have suggested elsewhere that it caused the harvest failures and food shortages (as Franklin also predicted) that ultimately became the catalyst for the Storming of the Bastille the event that began the French Revolution .

  89. Tim Ball says:

    norah4you (12:14:22)
    I am not sure from visiting your website if you are familiar with the work of A.E.J.Olgivie on the climate of Iceland. A summary of her work is available in the book “Climate Since A.D.1500″ as a chapter titled, “Documentary Evidence for changes in the Climate of Iceland, A.D. 1500 to 1800.” The article provides bibliography to all her other work plus many other sources. I had the privilege of being a reviewer of her chapter as well as other in the book.

  90. John Finn says:

    Tim Ball (13:54:10) :

    John: (10:37:49)

    I didn’t say the Dalton, weak or otherwise, was the cause, I simply said there appeared to be a coincidence and that is what we wanted to investigate.

    Fair enough, but there are too many readers of this blog who jump on the merest hint of a solar link and start issuing ludicrous predictions about imminent cooling. I think they’re wrong, but worse than that they are backing themselves (and other sceptics) into a corner.

    PS were you one of the contributors to the channel 4 programme.

  91. Jack Simmons says:

    Skeptic Tank (03:55:57) :

    … also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.’

    That’s small consolation to the self-imposed intercourse of cap & trade.

    No, it’s self-imposed abstinence of cap & trade.

    Even then, it’s not self imposed. It is imposed on those of us who want to have ‘future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations’.

    Just gone reading The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin by H.W. Brands. That is the way people talked in those days. Spotted the century in the quote within seconds. Even rowdy people like Andrew Jackson spoke that way. In those days insults were usually heavily laced with terms such as poltroon, and ended up with someone having a duel.

    Andrew Jackson carried at least two wounds from duels, the lead in the bullets contributed to his chronic poor health and irritable personality. There are some indications he may have simply been suffering from persistent bowel problems when he would have people hanged, shot, or imprisoned with no regard for habeas corpus.

    Branch also wrote a book on Andrew Jackson.

    Both are good reads and you will be surprised how little things have changed.

    Benjamin Franklin was a true believer in open discussions, even when they got a little out of hand. When he was attacked by a prominent barrister in what was known as the cockpit, he determined at that moment he could no longer view himself as a citizen of Great Britain. He decided at that point to support separation of the US from Great Britain.

    His reason?

    He was not even permitted to voice complaints about mistreatment at the hands of the authorities. In fact, by petitioning the government, he was deemed traitorous. He was not allowed to voice his opinion, or serve as an agent for the colonies to express their’s.

    Sound familiar?

  92. norah4you says:

    TIm Ball,
    I am. I discussed in a year or two ago in a group not sure if it was in sci.archaeology or soc.history.medieval, I think it was in a subordinate clause.
    What’s your point.

    The Climate in for example Iceland after 1500 is due to some eruptions back in 1341 and one or two later on. The last one in 1700′s Don’t have the exact date in mind but I have it in one of my history index for Greenland and Iceland. (Mostly from annals).

  93. Tim Ball says:

    norah4you (15:39:57)

    My point was merely to provide the courtesy of asking if you were aware of Ann Ogilvie’s work.
    I don’t agree with your other comments. The impact of volcanic eruptions is 8 to 10 years at most.

  94. norah4you says:

    Well Tim Ball,
    You aren’t a scholar of history that I can tell. Had you been you would have known from medieval sources as well as from archaeologic reports that you assumption for 8 to 10 years are as far from the truth as your assumptions in some other questions are!

    Anyhow the late eruption in 1700′s caused more death in Europe than the Spanish flu due to the toxic stoff spread changing the color of air not for more than a year, but the impact on climate hold for more than 80 years. It was a scince program about that one in one of the big channels the other month. The first one 1341 not only made Iceland lose land due to the big eruption exploding more than one vulcano also a large island between Greenland and Iceland disapeared. This series of eruptions 1341 over to early 1342 had direct impacts on the prolonged time of the so called Little Ice Age as well as on the agriculture situation, look for pollenreports in archaeologic reports and also on the fauna. In the later case you better look for the different types of lices found during excavations.

    But you still haven’t presented your point. I am willing to discuss any valid argument for period 1500-1800 not only in Iceland but in the Arctic over all.
    In between I guess you better read The Roman Church in Norse Greenland, editor G F Bigelow, ”The Norse of the North Atlantic, Acta Archaeologica 61(1991) page 142-150 Köpenhamn as well as Rousell A, Farms and churches in the Medieval Norse settlement of Greenland, Meddelelser of Grönland 86(1).
    as well as the old “Speculum Regale”

    You see reality always wins in the long run over faked/corrected/interpolated/assumed figures of the past centuries temperatures. If you don’t know the period 980 to 1435, then you don’t know what you need to know in order to understand the temperatures of the past.

  95. Glenn says:

    John Finn (09:09:30) :

    rbateman (06:09:49) :

    John Finn (04:07:03) :

    “That would be the a portion of the crazy way it works. A slighty warmer Arctic may let a few ships through in the Northwest Passage, but the Arctic is still a frozen inhospitable wasteland.

    Well that isn’t the way it worked between 1910-1940, 1940-1975 and 1975 to date. In each of those periods when the earth was warming the arctic warmed 4 times as much as anywhere else and when it was cooling the arctic was cooled 4 times as much as anywhere else.”

    What is this “it” you keep referring to? Did science understand that “it” in 1817?

  96. Roger Knights says:

    “A lot of what follows in the slipstream of proposed CO2 reduction is good in itself such as cleaner coal powered power plants, …”

    It’s inexpensive, and has been / is being done, to have coal plants that generate few particulates and pollutants, by adding scrubbers. Removing CO2 emissions is a separate and expensive matter.

  97. Ron de Haan says:

    Smokey (06:50:33) :

    “Craig Allen (05:55:42) :

    For how many years would the Arctic ice have to trend down before it would be considered to not be a short term fluctuation?

    If you are discussing global warming, you must include the Antarctic: click.

    As you can see, global ice cover is increasing”.

    That’s the real killer, that word Global!
    How many wet dreams have been spilled on the word “Global”?
    Global Hegemony, Global Control, Global Revolution, Global Dominance, Global Governance….Global Control?
    Those who tried to acquire it…
    In the end , they all got their balls frozen off.

    “History in a Nutshell”

  98. rbateman says:

    John Finn (09:09:30) :

    Not so fast, there. The last 10 years have not warmed.
    And this: CET shows plenty of periods that were just as cold as the Dalton Minimum – so does DeBilt. Uppsala shows a cooling trend which started after the Dalton Minimum. Crop failure and starvation were not unique to the early 19th century.

    Central England is regional, the Dalton spread to much further and wider than Merry old England, finding Europe and China. And I already gave you the references some time back.
    And besides that, starvation in Europe & England were averted by trade with countries that had surplus, so it didn’t happen. The climate part surely did, and it did not confine itself to England.

    Nobody is backing skepticism in a corner by quoting Grand Minimum in literary history. What happened and was written about across the Earth is not an alarmist prediction, it is what folks observed to take place.
    I won’t accept that talking about the role of the Sun as noted in the past is doing harm to skepticism.
    Minimalising and Regionalising it surely would be.

  99. rbateman says:

    Ron de Haan (18:09:34) :

    We will never be rid of those whose ambition to rule the world knows no bounds. This latest ruse of a common enemy in the form of Climate being no exception.
    I agree with Lindzen on the senseless weaking of the West. Those whose scruples do not include human rights will be eager to take advantage.
    How quickly it is forgotten what a terrible mess was found in the Eastern bloc and satellite states as the Party consumed and spilled with great fervor.
    All this for a warming in the climate that has vanished.
    Remember the Skate. 1959 and the ice was fine.

  100. norah4you says:

    Ron de Haan (18:09:34) :

    Smokey (06:50:33) :

    “Craig Allen (05:55:42) :

    For how many years would the Arctic ice have to trend down before it would be considered to not be a short term fluctuation?

    If you are discussing global warming, you must include the Antarctic: click.

    As you can see, global ice cover is increasing”.

    Well first of all I think the so called scholars had better look at the figures from mid 1950′s. In those days the Antarctic (and one of the years Arctic) ice decreased much more than now. But it grow in 60′s to 70′s….

    Look closer at the warnings for sea-trade in those areas during 50′s.

    But it’s even more complicated. In the Arctic there are, as anyone who studied Geology-courses here in Sweden in order to become teacher of Geography MUST have read four main forces that change the subjectively observed extension of Arctic Ice:
    * In the Arctic the Ice can be of two different types: drift and pack ice. The two are due to the Centrifugal force as well as other forces: Wind and Temperature erosion. Not heat but cold wind make more pack ice which for for a non-trained eye looking at for example NASA’s photos might seem like a decreasing taking place when it isn’t…

    * The Centrifugal force has larger impact on ice at sea that on ice in glaciers partly or soly on land. Look for the information we teachers teach regarding the tectonic plates movements due to Centrifugal force. (Students I have had age 13-15 have had better knowledge of Centrifugal force impact on tectonic plates as well as the impact on ice in Arctic, than many of the so called scholars speaking for Global warming today)

    * Wind erosion. That chapter was one of the thickest to be read in one of the books we had to know in order to pass the didactiv course for teachers teaching geography. Almost none of the so called scholars, I can’t find better name since they forgotten all they should have learnt in subject Theories of Science, also forgotten the impact of wind erosion combined with centrifugal force and the currants GLACIAL SEA stream, Greenlandic Stream not to mention the other streams in the region….

    * Temperature erosion. The impact on Arctic Ice of a rising +1 to + 2 degrees Celsius aren’t much even if it looks like it due to the relation changes from drift to pack ice and back to drift ice. In fact we would have needed a temperature rising over all Arctic region with + 5 to +7 medium each year to have an impact of warming! However the temperature differences during a day in Arctic summer and temperature difference during a week in Arctic winter has a large impact-curve correlating to the transformation of drift to pack ice as well as the other way round. As most who studied the subject knows the temperatures during one single day in many of the areas where science HAVE studied frequently, but hardly none of the stations are used by the so called scholars – one of the used ones were put in place March this year but have been in reports for over a year :-) – those temperature differences can be well over 20 degrees… I guess you all know that the over all medium temperature in the Arctic regions has been minus 5-8 degrees Celsius IN ARCTIC SUMMERTIME the last years as well as the last 50 years. First science expedition measuring this didn’t reach the inner part of Arctic before 1959. Not to mention that you do need stations each 10 km to get a good picture of temperature. Not the few used by the so called scholars today…..

    Then this might have been forgotten: (as well as so many other reality facts)
    Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Remained Constant During the 1990s. For information please read

    http://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/people/pwinsor/pdfs/winsor_2001.pdf

    There is more to be said but I rest my case.

  101. Rupert Wyndham says:

    Martin W – you must stop being dazzled by titles and position.

    RW

  102. Allan M says:

    John Finn (15:21:48) :

    “Fair enough, but there are too many readers of this blog who jump on the merest hint of a solar link and start issuing ludicrous predictions about imminent cooling. I think they’re wrong, but worse than that they are backing themselves (and other sceptics) into a corner. ”

    I don’t suppose I am alone in the perception that I have frequently learnt more in a short time from realising that I have been wrong, than from 20 years of being right.

    Someone once ACCUSED, yes accused, the economist John Maynard Keynes of changing his mind on an important issue. His reply was:

    “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?”

    I don’t vouch for his theories, but he was evidently an honest man. We have a debate because there is a paucity of facts. We will all, no doubt, be found only partially right or wrong. So where is the corner? In excess optimism, perhaps.

    I fear you are too much a politician.

  103. Rupert Wyndham says:

    Message incoherent.

    RW

  104. John Finn says:

    rbateman (20:08:32) :

    John Finn (09:09:30) :

    Central England is regional, the Dalton spread to much further and wider than Merry old England, finding Europe and China. And I already gave you the references some time back.

    De Bilt and Uppsala suggest Europe wasn’t affected. I don’t remember seeing anything on China. Any chance these might be thermometer records. The thing is among all this ‘evidence’ I see absolutely nothing in any temperature record. Somehow the cold in the Dalton Minimum managed to avoid those locations which had thermometers. Wouldn’t you know it – just our luck.

  105. J. Bob says:

    John Finn
    Go to
    http://rimfrost.no/

    They have long term world temp data.

  106. Norm says:

    Something to ponder…

    The quantity of water within the confines of the earth, that is, the total amount of water anywhere in the world, never changes. It is constant (it evaporates in one place and rains in another ad infinitum).

    Now the total number of people in the world is not a constant figure. The number keeps growing ever larger. The human body contains anywhere from
    60 to 80 percent water so therefor humans are re-distributing water from it’s earthly environs to the human body.

    Question: Does this redistribution affect the tidal changes over time?

  107. Rupert Wyndham says:

    Joseph (04:58:50) :

    Can anyone point me to a short list of reasons that man-caused global warming is so much fake-science?

    Yes, I think so.

    1. The first requirement of any scientific hypothesis is that it should be plausible – superficially at least. The AGW hypothesis is entirely predicated on the so-called “greenhouse effect”, with greenhouse gases taking the role of the glass (a) absorbing infra-red reflected from the earth and (b) radiating it back again in UV in an unceasing game of ping pong. [For this purpose, kindly note the word "radiate", ie not "conduct" or "convect".]

    2. Overwhelming emphasis is vested in the supposed role of CO2. CO2 is a mere trace gas – 0.038% of the atmosphere. It is not even the most significant ghg. That honour falls to water vapour. So already, as an explanation of putative global warming, subsequently mendaciously morphed to “climate change” (The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research: Working Paper No. 58 – The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change – Dennis Bray & Simon Shackley, Sept. 2004), the greenhouse effect is starting to look shaky.

    3. But why choose CO2 in the first place. The reason is simple but flawed in at least three major respects. The simple part is that CO2 absorbs infra-red. The flaws are (1) that it does so only to an extremely limited extent – ie primarily over the 15 micron waveband, (2) because of this it quickly becomes saturated such that the relationship between CO2 concentration and putative warming effects are not linear in character but logarithmic and (3) in radiating energy back to the Earth’s surface it can do so only as to a minute fraction of the energy it has supposedly absorbed.

    [To provide some indication of the effect of this logarithmic relationship, one or two numbers are illuminating. The first 20 ppm of atmospheric CO2 give rise to roughly 1½ºC of warming. The next 1½ºC requires a further 400 ppm, and the next 1ºC calls for a further 1000 ppm. We are currently standing at about 380 ppm.]

    4. Why? Because radiation, by its very nature, emits not in a single direction only but in every direction. In short, for every unit of energy being reflected back to Earth other comparable units will be reflected back “upwards” into space or sideways wherever. Ditto water vapour, but with the difference that H2O accounts for 95% of any ghg effect.

    5. Could this be why satellites measure Earth’s aborpsion of solar energy at around 148 watts per sq. metre, if memory serves, as well as why, surprise, surprise, they measure about the same quantum of energy being returned to space?

    6. Moreover, all this supposed energy transfer does not take place close to the global surface. Rather the drama is enacted at the level of the troposphere – let’s call that six or seven miles over our heads. Big problems here, however. (a) Average temperatures at that height are around a constant minus 21′C. (b) To comply with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics heat can flow only from the hot to the cold. As the surface of the earth is substantially warmer than the troposphere – well, why go further?

    7. The central issue, however, is that the idea that GHGs are warming the planet starts to look even more questionable. But, of course, questions for AGW groupies are not an option.

    8. We then come to the even more highly implausible proposition that it is human induced GHGs (especially CO2) that are warming the planet. Humans emit about 5% of all annual emissions of CO2; the rest emanates from the biosphere, volcanism and, probably the biggest of all, the oceans. The latter, of course, also absorb CO2. What the balance is nobody quite knows – at least as far as I’m aware.

    8. What the foregoing does demonstrates beyond rational contradiction is that climate is chaotic and vastly complex. The attempt to reduce it to the manipulation of a single variable, and an insignficant one to boot, is a priori not simply implausible, it is plain absurd.

    Naturally much else can be said, and has been said by sources vastly more informed than I. But, to revert to Joseph’s question, enough has been proposed here, I suggest, at least as to indicate why AGW is widely and justly labelled “junk science”. Added to this, the fanciful catastrophism and the crude conduct of its proselytisers provides its own commentary as to the underlying legitimacy of what they profess.

    Finally, someone in this string has stated that Christie (I think) and Lindzen have conceded that 20% of increases in global mean temperatures might perhaps be attributable to human activity. Well, even if true, that would account for 0.14°C of the the .74°C gmt rise in the last 150 years or so – scarcely measurable. Secondly, it says precisely nothing about causation – eg CO2 or changes in land usage. Thirdly, for many reasons – war, pestilence and famine being not the least among them, the land based temperature record is anyway haphazard, unreliable and flawed. It is now also pro-actively manipulated and misrepresented. Of course, Hansen, GISS, Jones and Hadley don’t want to use satellite; they might encounter Incoventient Truths.

    RW:

    No reasonable grounds for suspecting AGW “science.”? Hardly!

  108. Pamela Gray says:

    Norm, good heavens. Answer these:

    On what island can the entire human population stand shoulder to shoulder?

    What species has proven to be the most destructive to plant life, and therefore animal kingdom life?

  109. MartinW says:

    “Dazzled by titles and position” ?

    Wyndham – for myself, that could hardly be further from the truth, and you should not presume to make that judgement. Perhaps we differ on the best means to persuade key people. I tend to think that for them, measured argument will be the way, but maybe in other circumstances a stronger approach is better. At any rate, I shall be content if I live to see the end of the present delusional climate scare that has so many in its grip.

  110. Norm says:

    Ref:”On what island can the entire human population stand shoulder to shoulder?”

    In 1968 that would have been the Isle of Man. The projected population for next year would have to move over to the the island of Zansibar.

    But what does this have to do with the re-locating of water?

    I wasn’t trying to be facetious with my observations…just inquisitive.

    Norm

  111. Rupert Wyndham says:

    MartinW (09:38:44) :

    “Dazzled by titles and position” ?

    “Wyndham – for myself, that could hardly be further from the truth, and you should not presume to make that judgement. Perhaps we differ on the best means to persuade key people. I tend to think that for them, measured argument will be the way, but maybe in other circumstances a stronger approach is better. At any rate, I shall be content if I live to see the end of the present delusional climate scare that has so many in its grip.”

    For the benefit of readers of this blog, maybe you could provide one instance in the last two or three decades in which, without recourse to insolence and ad hominem innuendo, The Royal Society or any other warmista institution has been willing to engage in debate in open forum. And, for the avoidance of doubt, I do not mean simply with informed laymen; I mean with physicists and climatologists of great distinction. I’d be content to have you offer just one example.

    No, I’m afraid that the call for rational, courteous discourse was rejected by fascist environmentalism long ago. And with good reason. This is not about science, truth or beauty; it’s about politics and money. It’s just that you hadn’t noticed. Well, if you didn’t like the Rees smoke signal you’re certainly not going to like this one either:

    19 July 2009.

    Sir Ivor Crewe
    Master
    University College
    Oxford
    OX1 4BH

    Dear Sir Ivor Crewe

    Thank you for your letter of 5 June, in which you seek financial support from college alumni.

    It comes about a year after a similar letter from your predecessor. Let me begin then by drawing attention to my reply written at that time – copy enclosed for ease of reference. Of course, Robin Butler sent a courteous response in which, inter alia, he pointed out that the appointment of King as Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and Environment was a University decision, in which the College was not involved. He also stated that the University was broad church in which all manner of views were tolerated – and necessarily so, no doubt. As a general statement of the ideal one cannot disagree with this. Albeit temperately expressed, it was nevertheless a little disingenuous was it not? After all, on the issue of putative climate change we are supposedly dealing with rigorous science with stupendous consequences flowing from it. But the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (what one distinguished Japanese physicist has recently described as “being equivalent to astrology”) is no more soundly based scientifically than is intelligent design. And I don’t imagine that the University has a chair of Creationism. Or does it? More trenchantly, his observation would have been more persuasive had there existed even the slightest sign that warmist proselytisers were minded to engage with dissenters – many, after all, climatologists and physicists of great distinction. And, by the way, reluctance to engage in scientific debate embraces David King as well!

    So, since my letter to Robin Butler, in one sense nothing has changed. That is to say, I still have my waifs to look after in Thailand, a commitment which, by the nature of things, is unlikely to ease for quite some time; the youngest child is only eight, as I recall.

    In another sense, of course, everything has changed, has it not? In particular, the election of a mountebank and a poltroon as a fellow sends a message that cannot be misunderstood. It is that, in choosing to follow the path of financial expediency as opposed to the more arduous pursuit of truth, the College has followed in the steps of the University. How sad, how pusillanimous, how shameful, how dishonourable!

    No, in any circumstances, that is not supportable. If the College has climbed aboard that particular gravy train, one thing is abundantly clear and that is that it requires no further funding from anyone.

    Yours sincerely

    R.C.E. Wyndham

    PS Also enclosed is a letter sent in the last twenty four hours to the President of The Royal Society. It is relevant.

    Cc: Sir David King Lord Rees Prime Minister Ed Miliband MP David Cameron MP Nick Clegg MP Julia Goldsworthy MP Lord Lawson Lord Leach Mark Thompson As the spirit moves

    Vaclav Klaus is right. AGW is not a battle about scientific integrity; it is a battle about intellectual and personal freedom. And we’d all better realise it!

    Let me make a suggestion. Remove the rose tinted spectacles. Title and status will start to look less alluring.

    RW

  112. TonyB says:

    Rupert Wyndham

    I think this quote sums up the intent behind all manner of things including AGW, terrorism and the financial crisis.

    “H.L.Mencken wrote:The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    By the way, great letters. I think the Royal Society is way beyond the point where it should be treated with the reverence it thinks it deserves.

    You might also enjoy this extract from Pepys, made the same year as the Royal Society was founded.

    ” January 1660/61:
    It is strange what weather we have had all this winter; no cold at all; but the ways are dusty, and the flyes fly up and down, and the rose-bushes are full of leaves, such a time of the year as was never known in this world before here.”

    Tonyb

  113. Russell Seitz says:

    Give Rees credit for his diligence in correspondence – he replied with dispatch and courtesy to my European WSJ op-ed on an RS PR-apparatchik’s efforts to curtail the funding of inconvenient climate science.

  114. Norm says:

    Ref:”Douglas DC (08:00:39) :

    I read many years ago-during the great Ice Age scare,that it was postulated that the Arctic was Ice-free,giving a source of water vapor for the great ice sheets.Also the colder it got,(which wasn’t much) themore the polar ice retreated.-Feeding the Ice sheets.-Anyone ever hear of this,I can’t cite the source as i don’t recall where I read it.
    I think it was Scientific American,about 1975…”

    The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s… In 1975, cooling went from “one of the most important problems” to a first-place tie for “death and misery.” The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming (source: Fire and Ice).
    see more here: Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

  115. Tim Ball says:

    norah4you (16:18:46)

    You reply with a personal attack which is a sure indication you don’t want to discuss the issues. You cover your failure with an attempt at erudition and references, but it simply comes across as arrogance and nastiness. I posted information about the Royal Society letter and other information relating to early research on the subject as a courtesy. I also drew attention to Ogilvie’s work as a courtesy. There was no point being made but you rudely demanded to know what my point was.

    You said I was wrong about the general measurable influence of a volcanic event being 8 to 10 years but provided no evidence to counteract my claim that is the result of almost 40 years of researching publishing and teaching climate, with particular interest on the influence of climate on history.

    I am familiar with all the literature you reference, but then you clearly believe you are the only one that knows or understands anything. You make snide comments about scholars then cite their work as support for your position. Obviously it is only those scholars whose work you judge as correct. This approach is evidenced in your reply to other postings. I gather from your comments about a geology course required to become a geography teacher in Sweden that you are in that profession. I suppose your subjective judgments about scholars are a result of you marking high school papers rather than from publishing your own work.

  116. Rupert Wyndham says:

    Russell Seitz (20:05:00) :

    Give Rees credit for his diligence in correspondence – he replied with dispatch and courtesy to my European WSJ op-ed on an RS PR-apparatchik’s efforts to curtail the funding of inconvenient climate science.

    Hm, the thing about Rees is that he may reply once, but that will be it – hostages to fortune to do any more. Still, it would be interesting to see what the blighter had to say. At any time other than this, what would have been seen as astonishing and scandalous is the mere fact of the RS engaging in the sort activity you describe, or even thinking of doing so. As for courteous approaches, Tim Ball’s experiences described above make it clear that this is out of the question. Neither was his experience unique; it was entirely typical.

    TonyB – thanks for the quote. Yes, interesting for several reasons, including possible inclusion in some future smoke signal. Am obliged.

    RW

  117. Rupert Wyndham says:

    Tim Ball (23:22:30) :

    norah4you (16:18:46)

    You reply with a personal attack which is a sure indication you don’t want to discuss the issues. You cover your failure with an attempt at erudition and references, but it simply comes across as arrogance and nastiness. I posted information about the Royal Society letter and other information relating to early research on the subject as a courtesy. I also drew attention to Ogilvie’s work as a courtesy. There was no point being made but you rudely demanded to know what my point was.

    Prof. Ball – entirely par for the course, as you probably know better than most. And there are still people who believe that it is possible to engage with these cultists civilly and rationally.

    Amazing!

    RW

  118. norah4you says:

    “Tim Ball (23:22:30) :

    norah4you (16:18:46)

    You reply with a personal attack which is a sure indication you don’t want to discuss the issues. You cover your failure with an attempt at erudition and references, but it simply comes across as arrogance and nastiness. I posted information about the Royal Society letter and other information relating to early research on the subject as a courtesy. I also drew attention to Ogilvie’s work as a courtesy. There was no point being made but you rudely demanded to know what my point was.

    Prof. Ball – entirely par for the course, as you probably know better than most. And there are still people who believe that it is possible to engage with these cultists civilly and rationally.

    Amazing!

    RW”

    Prof. Ball, I have had the pleasure from 7 years old up to today to have had better scholars in this discussion than you around me. No matter what title Ph.D or Professor (spoke with one of them on phone minuits ago) or position Minister of Sweden or other politian (had an comment exchange with one less then a quater ago on my own blogg).

    What I have learnt over the years, is that it isn’t the title or position that makes the man! Don’t try to call my comments regarding your assumptions and thesis for personal attack! IF you do believe in your theories and thesis, OF course you can and may present valid arguments and I will be willing to present an analyse of premisses needed for your argument to be true as well as valuate them. Up to now neither of you on your side have presented a work, analyse, article etc which is up to the standard called for on groundlevel in any of all the subjects I have studied. Akrebi as well as good knowledge of Theories of Science is needed no matter who you are or I am!

  119. Phil. says:

    Steven Hill (05:27:13) :
    “I have followed the issue since around 1974″

    Interesting….in 1977 hansen was talking ice age, not global warming.

    Actually he wasn’t, he was already publishing papers on the enhanced greenhouse effect on Earth.

    Wang, W.-C., Y.L. Yung, A.A. Lacis, T. Mo, and J.E. Hansen, 1976: Greenhouse effects due to man-made perturbation of trace gases. Science, 194, 685-690, doi:10.1126/science.194.4266.685.

    Care to substantiate your statement?

  120. Phil. says:

    Ron de Haan (06:28:07) :
    GreenPeace, after reading the letter of the Royal Society to a ship and went to the Arctic Ice Sea to see the increddible melt with their own eyes.

    Unfortunetly they were forced to flee when they got stuck in ice with a thickness of more then 6 meters:

    Monday, July 27, 2009
    Midsummer farce in the Arctic: Greenpeace flees ice “way thicker than anything we can break”
    Climate Rescue Weblog

    The helicopter gets off the deck at 0800. The ship’s main engine starts 20 minutes later.

    The Arctic Ocean pack ice has invaded Nares Strait. It is old (called multi-year) sea ice, and averages six meters thick. This is way thicker than anything we can break with Arctic Sunrise. So before it can trap us in Hall Basin, we escape south.

    Of course it invaded Nares Strait just as I said it would here. Nares Strait melted very early this year leaving only the ice bridge at its mouth, as it normally does this broke a couple of weeks or so ago leaving the old ice to enter Nares Strait. This results in further loss of the oldest multi-year ice, it’s not something to be pleased about!
    It was covered here by the Canadian Ice Service
    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/App/WsvPageDsp.cfm?Lang=eng&lnid=7&ScndLvl=no&ID=11931#latest

  121. Phil. says:

    Pamela Gray (08:00:05) :
    Some thoughts about ice measurement

    1. Is it just me or has the Wilken’s Ice shelf re-constituted itself?

    It’s your imagination, quite the contrary in fact.

  122. Robin Guenier says:

    Rupert Wyndham:

    I disagree with your approach: as I said earlier, I believe it is likely to be counterproductive. I daresay Martin Rees deserves it; perhaps it made you feel better. But neither should impede the possibility of communication. It would be quite possible to unambiguously cover your (admirable) points plainly yet courteously and in a reasoned manner difficult to ignore, even by “cultists”; and especially when copied, as was yours, to other prominent people. Russell Seitz has demonstrated the truth of that.

    When, a few years ago, I was CEO of a government agency reporting to the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office, I dealt with many senior public people (including Robin Butler). In those days, such people felt obliged to deal fully with “awkward” but reasonably phrased letters, whereas intemperate letters such as yours were more easily consigned to the bin. I believe the same principle applies today.

    In any case, the RS may not be quite so confident about the authority of “climate change science” as you appear to think. Look, for example, at the policy statement on its website:

    “International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change. Possible consequences of climate change include rising temperatures, changing sea levels, and impacts on global weather. These changes could have serious impacts on the world’s organisms and on the lives of millions of people, especially those living in areas vulnerable to extreme natural conditions such as flooding and drought.”

    This seems to be an organisation hedging its bets by staying politically correct while exhibiting some uncertainty by carefully avoiding a definitive scientific statement. Reference to consensus is weak (as I’m sure the RS is aware) and the statement doesn’t say that the RS agrees with it. Also weak is the use of “possible” and “could” thereafter. So a clear letter on the record, especially one that exploits that uncertainty by stressing (as you do) the proper application of scientific method and the undermining of scientific integrity, and most especially if copied to other RS Fellows, could be a serious embarrassment that might be difficult to brush aside.

    And, yes, the RS deserves to be seriously embarrassed.

  123. Pamela Gray says:

    Phil, to what do you ascribe this melting? Please include an analysis of the weather events around the melting. Include a graph of the average and range of dates for this melt area historically. Please also describe the ocean currents that run through this area (there are two, one is a major current that is cold and runs South, the other is warm and travels North hugging the Greenland coast in this strait). Also indicate the condition of the jet stream at the time. Just so you can give us a complete picture of your understanding of how AGW adds to or is not a player in this scene.

  124. Pamela Gray says:

    Phil, now describe the Wilkin’s ice shelf. Is it formed by land ice pushed out to sea or is it land anchored sea ice? And what forces do these shelves of ice experience? Do sea-terminal glaciers push on them? Do oceanic oscillations impinge on them from underneath? What might tides do to these shelves? What wind forces are at play? And is AGW the major cause, adds to it, or is not a player in this scene?

  125. TonyB says:

    Phil

    I have had this discussion before with Joel Shore about Hansen and his supposed ice age predictions. I agree with you as I did with him. It was all based on a misunderstanding of Hansens involvement which is well explained in this snippet

    “The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen’s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

    The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that “in the next 50 years” – or by 2021 – fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas”

    Hansens software was intended for a completely different purpose-Venus- to what it was uiltimately used for by another scientist. Hansen merely let him use part of it to save the other guy having to rewrite the code. As far as I am aware Hansen has never believed in global cooling.

    Tonyb

  126. Rupert Wyndham says:

    “Prof. Ball, I have had the pleasure from 7 years old up to today to have had better scholars in this discussion than you around me. No matter what title Ph.D or Professor (spoke with one of them on phone minuits ago) or position Minister of Sweden or other politian (had an comment exchange with one less then a quater ago on my own blogg).”

    This presumably from the beauteous Norah. Goodness me!

    RW

  127. norah4you says:

    Rupert Wyndham, Goodness you,
    You missed a lot of the real scholars working with Environmental Questions from 50′s and calls those who worked with Climate Change from 1983, professors etc for charlatans – well Goodness you!

    You are too impressed of titles and positions of today.

  128. Rupert Wyndham says:

    Robin Guenier
    Rupert Wyndham: I disagree with your approach: as I said earlier, I believe it is likely to be counterproductive. I daresay Martin Rees deserves it; perhaps it made you feel better. But neither should impede the possibility of communication. It would be quite possible to unambiguously cover your (admirable) points plainly yet courteously and in a reasoned manner difficult to ignore, even by “cultists”; and especially when copied, as was yours, to other prominent people. Russell Seitz has demonstrated the truth of that.
    In the back of the mind, your name evokes a faint echo. From a Google search, I note that you’re an IT guru, which doesn’t help much but, in any event, thank you for your thoughts. They warrant the trouble of replying in some detail. I begin by stating unequivocally that I consider you to be totally misguided.

    In almost all controversies, a restrained, sober and courteous dialectic should be the norm. This, however, does not always happen, and AGW “science” is one of the conspicuous exceptions. The reason for this is simple. The hypothesis, if at all it merits that label, was never a construct borne of scientific curiosity, if you will. It was proposition borne of a nefarious purpose, the proselytisers of which had no intention of tolerating any form of debate whatsoever. In spirit, these people were and are Taliban; they don’t want a debate, because there is nothing to debate. I don’t believe that you’ve understood at all this fundamental dynamic.

    To me it came home forcefully early in the controversy. In 1990, Channel 4 broadcast “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”, a short but entirely fair and sensible overview, which posed perfectly reasonable questions. By the forces of environmental fascism, and the University of East Anglia in particular, it was met not with reasoned counter-argument but with hissing, spitting, venomous innuendo and vituperation. In fact, this did not come as a great surprise, but it did serve as confirmation, if confirmation were needed, that what we had here was not science but fraud, and fraud, moreover, on a truly monumental scale. It is fashionable nowadays to poo-poo the notion of conspiracy in public life. It’s, perhaps, worth calling to mind that it was no less a figure than Adam Smith who commented: “Show me five or six men of business gathered together, and I will show you a conspiracy against the public good!” In 2009, we might say the same of Parliament and the RS, but perhaps you feel that I’m now being needlessly provocative.

    Since you concede that the RS “deserves to be seriously embarrassed”, I make the assumption that you accept that the whole AGW hypothesis is flawed. I take it also that the deployment of “temperate” language such as this is what you would prefer to see. I don’t agree – which is to say, either that any language which I have used to the Noble Lord has been intemperate or that moderating it would be likely to achieve more. Let me repeat to you the challenge I posed earlier to MartinW – if only for the benefit of readers of this blog, provide me please with just one example of a willingness by AGW protagonists during the last two or three decades (decades, mark you) to engage in the sort of dialectic you favour – oh, and by the way, as do I.

    AGW has never been a dialogue at all, either scientific or political. By the forces of a debased environmentalism, aided and abetted by some rather stupid public figures, it has consisted almost exclusively of a megaphone monologue rant that has been sustained now for 30 odd years. I do not see that the “temperate” approach which you advocate has had the slightest effect for the good. After all, what now do we have – the Climate Change Act, the prospect of operationally fatuous and grotesquely expensive wind turbines blighting the countryside, absurd recourse to so-called clean bio-fuels which generate probably as much CO2 as do their fossil counterparts and, moreover, result in further starvation and destitution amongst the world’s most disadvantaged – etc, etc, etc?

    Does it give me satisfaction to write to the RS in terms of which you have expressed disapproval? Well, yes and no. It gives me no satisfaction that any call for such letters exists in the first place. But if it does and, if I can summon the wit and the energy to craft messages that resonate with some at least, then, yes, it does. I hope that answers your implied question. Will my letter simply be binned? Quite possibly, but then your presumably more emollient alternatives appear to have fared no better, so wherein is your point? “Russell Seitz has demonstrated the truth of that.” Russell Seitz has demonstrated the truth of what?

    No, Mr. Guenier, let’s stop dancing minuets. The entire AGW farrago has been from the outset a monstrous scam. In large measure this has been made possible not simply by silence from the RS but, rather, by its pro-active intervention in providing a spuriously authoritative underpinning for the fraud, with likely consequences that as of now can only guessed at. I do not say that, in this regard, its role has been unique. It has not, but it has been highly prominent, and continues to be. You perceive that they might be “hedging their bets”. Given that they’ve opprobriously made their position clear, (a) I very much doubt it (How can they?) and (b) even if true, how disreputable.

    I have now officially entered into the ranks of OAPdom, so missed out, as it were, on the war. Since that little unpleasantness, however, I do not recall that there has been a single moral issue of greater moment than so-called climate change. So, let me risk your disapprobation by being once again distastefully candid. I hold it as self-evident that it is quite simply impossible for a scientist (well, anyway, a physicist or climatologist of integrity) to support this fiction. I am aware that Prof. Lindzen has said otherwise and, God knows, on this subject, I would hesitate to disagree with anything – pretty much- that comes from him. But, in this one respect, I do disagree with him. So, from that perspective, what we are talking about here is the wilful subversion the greatest achievement and aspiration of the human species, namely science, and this by the very people whose stewardship should have been directed towards preserving its integrity.

    And you favour assuagement. No, I don’t think so; moral turpitude is just that, and there is a time to say so without circumlocution.

    RW

  129. Robin Guenier says:

    Unconvincing, Mr Wyndham.

    The roots of the global warming / climate change scare are complex: I won’t bore you with my views. But, as you know, those roots are deeply embedded throughout the mainstream media, institutions, politicians, government, industry, commentators, charities, schools … and scientists. A network of dependencies, careers, incomes and reputations depend on the continuation of the orthodoxy, which has acquired many of the characteristics of religious belief. So undermining it is extraordinarily difficult. But doing so is of the utmost importance: our economy, our environment, the future of our children and grandchildren and, in particular, the futures of many of the poorest people in the world depend on it.

    Scientists are the Achilles heel of that network. I believe that many, possibly even most, who are active in or associated with “climate science” are uncomfortable about the scare. But many are, understandably perhaps, keeping quiet because of continued funding, career advancement, honour and perhaps the warm feeling of being part of a popular group in the ascendant. But their underlying lack of comfort is exemplified, I suggest, by the Royal Society’s feeble statement in the headline of its website – see my earlier post.

    Therefore, demolition of the orthodoxy must start with the scientists and that means exploiting their latent discomfort. Current actions by members of the American Chemistry Society and the American Physical Society (see Anthony’s stories elsewhere) show what can happen.

    The Royal Society has many distinguished Fellows. I do not think all are a part of your “monstrous scam”. I do, however, think that the majority is committed to the integrity of the profession and, especially, the basic importance of the Scientific Method. Most, who have priorities other than the climate, would be disturbed if they thought their Society was contributing to its undermining. Work on that and the edifice will eventually tumble.

    The way forward is to avoid argument and the distraction of old battles, but to keep asking to see the testable, empirical evidence that continued human emission of GHGs will cause dangerous global warming. That there is no such evidence must eventually be made plain by polite insistence on an answer. Once that happens, the scare must crumble.

    But shrill invective, by reinforcing demonisation of sceptics, can only set back the essential objective of making that happen.

    Robin

  130. Phil. says:

    Phil. (07:49:56) :
    Pamela Gray (08:00:05) :
    “Some thoughts about ice measurement

    1. Is it just me or has the Wilken’s Ice shelf re-constituted itself?”

    It’s your imagination, quite the contrary in fact.

    That is all that’s necessary to refute that rather strange notion, which a glance at the current image of the Wilkin’s compared with a year ago will confirm:

    http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/wilkinsarctic/pub/images/ASA_WSM_1PNPDE20090729_050324_000004152081_00119_38750_9727_100m_img.jpg

    http://www.esa.int/images/Envisat_ASAR_Wilkins_Ice_Shelf_9_July_2008_annotated_H.jpg

    I don’t see why a detailed essay on the nature of the Wilkin’s Ice shelf as requested by you is necessary to underpin what is self-evident from the images. You might like to explain to us why you believe that a covering of frazil ice around the remaining wreckage of the Wilkin’s will lead to the former 200m thick ice shelf reconstituting itself? A detailed mechanism such as the one you requested might be useful.

    Phil, now describe the Wilkin’s ice shelf. Is it formed by land ice pushed out to sea or is it land anchored sea ice? And what forces do these shelves of ice experience? Do sea-terminal glaciers push on them? Do oceanic oscillations impinge on them from underneath? What might tides do to these shelves? What wind forces are at play? And is AGW the major cause, adds to it, or is not a player in this scene?

  131. Rupert Wyndham says:

    Robin Guenier (06:41:41) :

    Unconvincing, Mr Wyndham.

    Well, Mr.Guenier – plainly we are going to differ. As to specifics:

    Para 1 – analysis questionable, but you’re certainly right about the broad conclusions you draw.

    Para 2 – scientists (whatever that word means) are not the Achilles’ heel of that network. Nature being uncooperative leading to increasing public incredulity is/are. To its great credit the Sunday Telegraph has consistently published dissent; the Daily Mail looks as though it may be starting to do so. At the moment, we can only hope so.

    Para. 3 – your analysis is wrong. Scientists who have invested in this scam will hang in for dear life – as you say, too much to lose, and will continue to falsify data and keep secret their methodology. They will continue to make assertions without benefit of evidence. They will continue to lie. The following e-m received on 30 July from a prominent and distinguished Canadian climatologist may be of interest both to you and to readers of the blog:

    “Hello Rupert

    I have been reading your letters to Royal Society President and to BBC as well as to other scientists and politicians on the global warming science.

    Your letters bring out so many isuuses and unceratinties in the science and you have an uncanny knack of presenting these scientific issues in a way that many scientists like me do not have ( at least this is my personal persepctive) in our lingustic skills.

    I forward an e-mail I receive regularly from Prof Alan Robock an atmospheric Science Prof at Rutgers University in New Jersey USA.

    Robock has become a high-profile scientist and one of the main pillars of the IPCC science.

    He is one of the important members of the AGU ( American Geophyiscal Union) executives and weilds a lot of influence on the scientific community in the area of weather & climate and of course climate change.

    As you know AGU is the largest scientific society in the world ( I think) with a membership of 48000 or about. Further AGU is still pushing for the AGW hypothesis and in its recent 2008 statemnt of climate change it has endorsed the IPCC science. Many of us who are members of the AGU made submissions as requested by AGU executives in summer 2008 on climate change. I made submission along with Fred Singer whose submission we all felt was important as it pointed out the “mis-match of fringer prints” by showing how the trop temp in tropical latutudes have changed very little against the GHG hypothesis which requires the trop troposphere to warm up much more rapidly than the sfc levels ( the simple GHG hypothesis requires that more radiation will be absorbed from lower levels due to greenhous warming and this must warm upper trop more than sfc). You may have read recent article by Prof Lindzen in which he ( Lindzen) refers to a paper by Santer/Wigley/ Susan Solomon/Phil Jones etc ( all the main IPCC scientists ) claiming that the trop temp patterns are “in line with IPCC hypothesis ” if we take into account uncertainties and corrections to data etc. In short these authors still refuse to accept that the trop temp signature is inconsistent with AGW hypothesis. Lindzen has dismissed this contention by simply saying that “this represnts a curruption in the IPCC climate sc community which would rather correct the data to fit the theory than accept that their theory is wrong” I agree with Lindzen’s assessment. These IPCC BIG WIGS do not want to accept that their models are NO GOOD! The IPCC models all exaggerate warming!

    What I am suggesting here is : If you feel motivated would you like to consider writing to Prof Robock about the prsent state of the GW science?

    You may want to include some of the letters you have written to various scientists and politicians.

    I do not know whethher this would make any difference and whether Prof Robock may feel motivated to respond to your letter, but I feel it is worth a try.

    AGY prides itself as serving the world sc community and AGU to be fair has been now publishing many papers questioning the GW science.

    Having said that AGU executives still adhere to IPCC science.

    Hopefully a letter from you may prompt Robock and others at AGU to take a closer look at the growing debate.

    In a recent July 2009 issue of EOS ( a weekly AGU publication which is widely read) there were exchanges about a “survey” which AGU took ( the survey interpreter is one Dr Peter Doran who spent sometime in the Antarctica few yrs ago) and Doran claims that “there is NO sc debate against the GW sc! ) I felt this statemnt was completely contrary to what we sceptics feel is a growing debate about the GW science. The recent exchanges were by a couple of Profs in USA & Sweden both questioning Doran’s conclusions. I wrote to Doran informally soon after his article appeared in February 2009 but Doran never responded to my e-mails.

    Anyway the point I am making is; Despite AGU”s open policy and its publshing of many good papers on and against the GW science, it ( AGU) still refuses to admit that the AGW hypothesis needs to be revisited.

    If your letter get Prof Robock to rethink the AGU policy perhaps we have achieved something.

    I would appreciate your thoughts on this”

    I have not yet responded, but have received another e-m yesterday from the same source, to wit:

    “Hello Rupert

    I presume you are followingthe saga (sordid!) of data manipualtion and purging of data files from Public Domain by Phil Jones, the data manager ( manipulator) and a leading GW alarmist.

    You may be interested to note that the AGU recently awarded Phil Jones with a special honour and selected him along with about 40 others as the AGU Fellow for 2008/09.

    AGU prodes itself in selecting the most emeinent scientists for this special hnour. Per AGU only 0.1% of total memebership is selected for AGU fellowship each yr, roughly about 45 ( out of 45000).

    I hope you feel motivated to write to Prof Alan Robock the atm science head for AGU who probably makes the selection of people like Phil Jones.

    If Phil Jones is really massgaing data and/or withholding information as we think he does, should an august Body like AGU confer a Fellowship Title on such a ( sleazy!) fellow?

    Anyway this is my take on this news item.

    I feel now that we sceptics must keep pushing these AGU guys who control now the GW agenda and ask them some hard questions as to what is happening in their sc community. Why is groundtruth being altered to fit the GW theory?”

    I must ask you to accept that messages such as these are not exceptional – and, while I hope I am not bowled over by them, yes, I am pleased to receive them. The first conclusion to be drawn from these two is that your advocacy of seeking to influence the scientific community is unpersuasive. The second I will come to at the end.

    Para 4 – Frankly, I find this an amazing paragraph. Of course, there are distinguished fellows of the RS, some of whom may have reservations about its stance. They are doing precious little about it, however, which at best is not very impressive. There are even more scientists of great distinction outside the RS and, by God, they are doing something about it! Strangely enough, they too are often accused of being shrill and intemperate. Your view of human nature is commendably optimistic; no, the edifice will tumple, when it seems expedient to jump ship, if you’ll forgive the mix of metaphors. Oh, and in passing, since you parenthesise “monstrous scam”, am I to infer that you dissent from this description. Would you likewise dissent from a description of a drug dealer as a “monstrous parasite”?

    Para 5 – Alas, these are not old arguments – would that they were. They are very much current, as the two quotes above illustrate all too clearly. In short, science continues to be actively subverted on a daily basis – yes, with the open collusion of the RS.

    Para 6 – Now to be second conclusion. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to make references such as “shrill invective” if you wish, and I don’t doubt that there will be some who agree with you. I can tell you, however, that most (by a long way) do not, and I am not talking about vox pop, I am talking about authentic scientists.

    Your approach really amounts to a form of appeasement. I see no evidence that it has had the desired effect in the past, and I don’t believe that it will in the future. The RS and the BBC, in particular, will give way when they are generally treated with scorn, anger and derision. Fortunately, they seem at the moment to be doing quite a creditable job in securing that outcome.

    RW

  132. Robin Guenier says:

    Yes, Mr Wyndham it does seem that we differ. For the reasons I’ve given, I believe you are misguided and your approach likely to be a setback to efforts to undermine the established view of AGW.

    Read this (the RC’s “Climate change controversies: a simple guide”): http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=33479

    It contains no histrionics, no obviously outlandish claims – indeed, through the eyes of, say, a busy politician with a myriad of other concerns and priorities, it would – I suggest – seem rational, sensible and authoritative. Yet you and I – and most readers of this blog – know that it is seriously flawed and misleading. Do you really think that your approach would be more likely to expose that than my simple question, focused exclusively on demonstrating the lack of empirical evidence that further human emissions of CO2 will cause dangerous global warming (see the penultimate paragraph of my post yesterday)?

  133. Rupert Wyndham says:

    Hello Mr. Guenier

    We have both given our reasons for believing that the other is wrong. Moreover, unlike the cohorts of the warmistas, we have done so reasonably civilly and in open forum (very much so). Well, you will take the high road, and I’ll keep plodding along on the low; insh’Allah between us, we may make a tiny difference, though I wouldn’t bet on it. Alas no, that will happen when (a) the absurdity of AGW claims increasingly becomes apparent for all to see (eg the BBQ summer of 2009, which has received a gratifying level of derisive coverage), (b) above all when the sheer, staggering cost of this fraud comes home to people (that’s only just begun), (c) when, just perhaps, the outright chicanery of taxpayer funded ersatz science (the Met Office being at this moment in mind) is more widely acknowledged.

    As to your question, “Climate change controversies: a simple guide” is, indeed, a farrago of mendacious claptrap. Certainly it convinces some, especially those who, for a mishmash of reasons from the self-serving to the pathetic, desire religious endorsement above all else. Others it disgusts, to wit those who hold that the duty implicit in God-given intelligence is to use it, and never ever take on board anything handed down solely on the basis of authority. The RS is supposed to be the embodiment of that spirit of intuitive scepticism, and, at its best, has been. The fact that it has diverged now indicates, I suggest, a clear determination to be perverse and that, as you have suggested but without following through, this perversity is motivated by lucre – well mainly.

    In short, why should you or anyone feel impelled to persuade the RS to alter a stand which should never have seen the light of day in the first place? “Do you really think that your approach would be more likely to expose that than my simple question,……?” Yes – it is less calculated to allow liars to remain cosily in their comfort zones. As for politicians – please, let’s not debase a good honest difference of opinion!

    Well, much to the relief of the moderator no doubt, I am now signing off.

    RW

  134. Robin Guenier says:

    Well, Mr Wyndham, I certainly agree that the chances of either of us doing more than make a tiny difference are slim. So let’s hope that reality about the absurdity of the dangerous AGW enterprise dawns soon. And, as I said before, current actions by members of the American Chemistry Society and the American Physical Society (see Anthony’s stories elsewhere) just may mark a beginning. I have little doubt that it’s largely up to scientists to break the mould and suspect (a vain hope in your eyes) that the Royal Society has members brave enough to contribute.

    I’ve enjoyed the exchange. RG

  135. Rupert Wyndham says:

    Hello Mr. Guenier

    Having signed off, I would not normally return to a thread. However, by virtue of an association with a scientific i/net group, I’ve been sent an e-m containg the following link, namely http://www.climateaudit.org/. If you’ve not already seen the latest content through another route, I think you’ll find it interesting and disturbing. climateaudit is now, of course, world famous, but these latest reports, even by the standards set by Hadley, are arresting .

    Rgds

    RW

  136. Robin Guenier says:

    RW: yes, I look at ClimateAudit regularly and agree it’s a useful – and often disturbing – resource. I have contributed once or twice. I assume you’re referring to the Met Office, Dr Phil Jones (CRU) and FOI. “Arresting” puts it well – if mildly. Best wishes – RG

  137. Robin Guenier says:

    RW: in case you’re still reading this, I suggest that, if you decide to post a comment on ClimateAudit, you adopt a more temperate tone than you would seem to prefer. As you see from Steve McIntyre’s comments at 4:38 and 7:49 yesterday, he doesn’t like angry epithets. As you know, I agree with him. Best wishes – RG

  138. Rupert Wyndham says:

    RG – I have seen your posting, because notifications of new ones to the thread pop up in my Inbox, and I don’t know how to stop them.

    Anyway, thank you for your observations; for someone they will doubtless be useful. As for Steve McIntyre, I’m afraid I can’t follow your references. However, I do have some reason to believe that he is aware of what I have written, including the latest Rees letter which has caused you distress. Since, subsequent to its wider dissemination, I have briefly heard from him, it does not appear to have affected him in the same way.

    I do not recognise your choice of vocabulary.

    Rgds.

    RW

    PS Emphatically now signing off.

Comments are closed.