I’ve been given a report on glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic that I want to share with readers. There’s some compelling evidence of glacier melting and open water in the Arctic sea in this report that I haven’t seen before.
There are also worrisome reports of significant temperature increases, with anomalies of several degrees. Also in the report is the mention of ice free open sea of almost 2 million square kilometers, which is termed as “unprecendented in the history of the Arctic”.
It is shocking to read. I urge readers to have a look at some of the excerpts I’ve posted.
First a map. Spitsbergen is part of Svalbard, which is part of Norway.
From the page 471 above, except for the date, this language seems familiar:
Well, we all know what a warm year 1934 was.
Here’s a mention of some strong temperature anomalies, as much as 10 degrees.
Here we see some significant reduction in Arctic sea ice across broad areas:
Wind seems to be a factor in flushing out the Arctic basin.
Signs that the “warming is not terminating”. Oh, that has to be bad.
Here’s the book:
All of these reports about sea ice and melt seems familiar, except the date, which is 1943.
There’s also a fascinating discussion about linkages between sunspots and precipitation on pages starting on page 460.
You can view the entire book here at archive.org
Oh and here’s that mention of “unprecendented in the history of the Arctic” open water from page 470:
The more things change, the more they stay the same. It seems from history that the Arctic ice is always going up or down. We can’t assume that our recent 2007 record sea ice minimum is something unique in the history of the Arctic ice.
And of course we’ve heard historical reports of a melting Arctic before, such as this one:
November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.
Big hat tip to Richard North of the E.U. Referendum, who alerted me to this book.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
This is great! If we can say it is attributed to “wind” then we should stop the insanity of building “wind” farms, right? (just kidding) I want my tax dollars back that are going to big wind AWEA because of the “scare” of global warming. We are looking at energy choices based on Gore and special interest groups, instead of SCIENCE.
Thanks for a great heads up.
Excellent work. Of course, if the geological record was referred to, and ice core histories were to be taken into account, it would be shown that Arctic/Antarctic ice sheets have been waxing and waning for millions of years. All without the help of anthropegenic generation of carbon dioxide.
The resulting increase in sea levels from this Glacier’s melting is believed to be what caused Rolling Stones’ Brian Jones’ drowning.
Remember the warmenists claim the melting is “unprecedented” then you do some research show them that this has occurred in the past and then they move the goal posts again.
Remember Dr Meier discounted this melting:
Dr. Walt Meier: No. Analysis of the temperatures does not support a cyclic explanation for the recent warming. The warming during the 1920s and 1930s was more regional in nature and focused on the Atlantic side of the Arctic (though there was warming in some other regions as well) and was most pronounced during winter. In contrast, the current warming is observed over almost the entire Arctic and is seen in all seasons. Another thing that is clear is that, the warming during the 1920s and 1930s was limited to the Arctic and lower latitude temperatures were not unusually warm. The recent warming in the Arctic, though amplified there, is part of a global trend where temperatures are rising in most regions of the earth. There are always natural variations in climate but the current warming in the Arctic is not explained by such variations.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/21/nsidc-s-dr-walt-meier-answers-10-questions/
Yes, what’s the context? What’s missing in the alarmist utterances is usually simple context. Has it happened before? If we’re given a percentage, what is the quantity; if a quantity, what is the percentage?
Above all, when we’re shouted at breathlessly about the effects, we should ask quietly but persistently for evidence of the cause.
Richard Treadgold,
Convenor,
Climate Conversation Group.
too bad that they didn’t have satellite photos in 1934, then we would know if the last three years were unprecedented. of course, R. Gates would claim that the ice was much thicker in the good old days.
Nice catch. There is a lot of very interesting things in old books from 1940’s and earlier, not just in regard to climate, but would lead people to question much of what they believe to be true today. See how long this one stays archived.
It is hard to argue with the information presented by Zubov. He was a highly trained scientist in the Soviet Arctic Research Institute. One reason we have this detailed information was because of sharing by the Allies in WWII. It is compelling evidence of extensive Arctic sea ice melt in the 1930s.
The hubris of some climate scientists is to presume that a mere 30 years of Arctic satellite data is conclusive when it may only show half of a seventy-year cycle. The relative influences of AGW vs LIA rebound and long cycles is never even entertained.
They blamed WW1 for the warming before:
http://climate-ocean.com/05_13-Dateien/05_13.html
Good stuff.
The comment about amplitude of tides being increased by decreased ice resonated with me. I’m of the opinion that the “wind and tide” explanation for 2007, while genuine, stops short of recognizing that thin, rotten ice is more susceptible to that kind of thing than thicker, more concentrated ice. Call it a “positive feedback”, I guess. Look at the 2007 Cryosphere images for late spring and early summer for how that ice looked. . .
See tips and notes for an article I found on what I think is a reference to what is being called “rotten ice” now and that these occurrences are normal.
Accounts of the ice and icebergs are given in the AMA Monthly Weather Reviews for the cold period preceeding the ‘unprecedented’ melting of the 20’s – 40’s.
I have to believe that the meltists know all about the previous episode. Then, as now, they still don’t have an explanation as to the global nature of warming, long before CO2 made it’s rise.
No one will ever know.
I can hear the snickering and bellicose laughter in Moscow as they watch Western Climatology run itself onto the rocks.
You can always find someone to tell you the sky is falling.
Then one goes and buys a $8,875,000.00 ocean-view villa, I guess to watch sea level rise, after riding in his Gulf Stream.
http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-hotprop-gore-20100428,0,4103538.story
But I thought the 30’s were only warm in the US, that the rest of the world was a veritable ice box. Warmists have assured me of this. Would they lie?
“We’re turning normal variations into the ancient notion of an omen. We’re scanning this small residue for small changes and speaking of them as though they were ominous signs of something or other.”
Do you have a current protograph of the islands?
Nice shape for a lake, it is popular in mid February?
Even Jones now admits that it has all happened before:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N16/C2.php
… that together with his admission that there has been no significant warming in 15 years seems to imply he has seen the light after being stood down and looking up.
Well, I too want my greenbacks back …. but the object of climate change is not about climate. It’s about greenbacks and greenbacks only.
They need our attention headed one direction while trying to cope with another major problem. How to do it, use the law to rob us. Legalised robbery, that’s Cap and Trade. So why, ever thought of what caused the economies to tremble ?
Every government, has in all the ages, robbed all people.
One more as the election is comming up and it’s getting actuality, and I have seen the symptoms in the Swedish debate last week.
Every election is like an auction on stolen goods to come.
Re the first image, the lake at Borebukta, must be same cookie cutter ! http://www.pajamadeen.com/images/australia-australian-heart-reef.jpg
This guy is a sceptic to the sceptisism;
http://www.truthout.org/is-sun-finally-setting-climate-change-skepticism58965
Ah shucks. Can’t we just panic without history or facts?
Now explain this:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
Official record stubbornly claims the ice was steady until the CO2-induced death spiral started.
Nice work from our soviet comrades.
It’s a pity we are not in the 1960’s, everything was blamed on the bomb.
One of my big niggles about IPCC WG1 AR4 Chapter 4, is the lengthy discussion about poor Greenland melting away, without any mention that it was known that it was in a similar state of catastrophic warming in the early 1900’s. (for instance, Polyakov et al.)
Jason Box was one of the contributors for Chapter 4, and he at least was well aware of the earlier catastrophe.