“Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs”
In case you missed it, this article in the New York Times illustrates what some scientists believe is a very serious issue, and they are speaking out on it. Here is a snapshot of the article:
You can read the entire article in PDF form at this link
There’s just one thing wrong with this article, besides that it is flat wrong. Oh I know, there will be those that insist it may come true. However, there’s one bit of context that is worth exploring.
The article, as seen above, was published February 20th, 1969
See the date stamp at the bottom of the PDF
On the flip side, here is an article from 1922 where the ice is actually melting fast:
Deja Vu all over again: climate worries of today also happened in the 20’s and 30’s
Hat tip to: John Goetz
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not really OT, but does anyone have the latest sat photos of the current ice?
Ah well, next time at least there will be plenty of easily accessible history on the “net,” whatever form it will be then. It will certainly beat the browsing of microfiche of the NYT and a more local newspaper like I did to recover some details about the Blizzard of 1978 in New England. I wonder if there will still be paper versions of the Times next time.
Real-time actual (not computer-generated) Sat pics are here. (Lots of cloud cover lately which makes it difficult to get a good view.)
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/
Daily sea-ice extent data is here.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Hey now if you read that article it is not at all like today’s similar themed ones… they actually include 2 sides, note: “Other Specialist See No Thinning of Polar Ice Cap”. By the 5th paragraph they are already saying that Soviet Scientists agree with American Scientists that the Arctic was already starting to cool… Even though there is alarmism, at least there us a somewhat balance to the article. There is 2 sides presented.
Where is that today NYT?
Proving global warming=disaster is too easy. Make hundreds of predictions of disaster, and a couple of them are bound to come true. And there ya go, global warming is a proven fact. I don’t think this Arctic thing is going to fly, however. Better to stick to penguin extinctions or something a little less global. Penguins are bound to be dieing somewhere, so the chances of scaring the public are much enhanced with some gory pictures of dead penguins. And don’t forget the coral and polar bears, lots of good photo ops there.
This is great news. We can drill up there for oil year around!
Anthony, you’re so subtle in your approach, it shows. Figured this to be an older piece, though it turns out to be not quite as old as I’d first suspected.
Compared to the way such stories are being handled today, this comes across as first class journalism. It covers all the bases and while it only briefly mentions the theory of CO2 warming, it notes the cooling climate post-1940 and the thought that there’s more going on than meets the eye.
What struck me in several spots in the story are the assumptions being made:
• the ice will all melt
• weather patterns will all change
• will be a disaster for farming regions
• will lead to more snowfall and new ice sheets
Where have we seen this pattern and approach before? Oh yes — in calls for more funding for more research.
And the beat goes on and on and on…
Looks like NYT is paying the price for their one-sided reporting:
http://business.theage.com.au/business/new-york-times-profit-falls-as-ad-sales-drop-20080724-3k37.html
I guess it depends on how one defines “soon.” Present day alarmists suggest it will be free in a couple of decades from now. Is 60 years “soon” by anyone’s definition?
Truthsword –
“There is 2 sides presented. Where is that today, NYT?”
Somewhere far in the past, I’m afraid. Around 1969, it would seem.
And there’s never a time machine around when you need one.
ahh i love science but im always going to be a history freak hahahah
I have a philosophy that ‘if’ relates to a parallel universe.
Someone has noted a fall in the New York times profits. As another someone said,’ You can fool all of the people etc etc……’ . A perspective from a far distant land is that this New York Times reporting appears to have many similarities to the Melbourne Age: I rest my case!
Re AGW and the recent cooling, I think that a “prisoner’s dilemma” imperative will start to apply to the press and public officials. (It’s the same thing that drives endorsements in US political primaries, btw). With evidence mounting against AGW, those with historically moderate positions will start to triangulate, in an effort to appear to have been on the winning side.
Extremists (who have committed themselves irrevocably) will bluster, which is a classic negotiating position employed by those with no leverage.
FYI:
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.php?img=icef
I think there is a race going on or something.
Or maybe some trading of baskets.
I’ll bet on “L”, the “Dead Duck”, to show.
A nice comparison between arctic ice this week, and in july last year can be found here (link)
Years ago, maybe 50, I read somewhere that an hypothesis explaining where all the water came from that fell on Canada as snow to build up the 2 mile thick Canadian Ice Shield of the last Great Ice Age was from an ice free Polar Ocean. Who knows, it had to come from somewhere.
Even back then they were using CO2 as a villain and postulating dust and smoke as the cooling agents. Seems things never change.
Pieter Folkens (19:05:37) :
“I guess it depends on how one defines “soon.” Present day alarmists suggest it will be free in a couple of decades from now. Is 60 years “soon” by anyone’s definition?”
It’s always interesting to talk to geologists, especially about climate change. 60 years is literally nearly no time at all. 60,000 years is a moment or two unless you’re looking at ephemeral things like ice ages or the brief lifespan of Cape Cod, a terminal moraine that is rapidly eroding away. 60,000,000 years is a decent chunk, as it gives the tectonic plates enough time to build a mountain range.
[…] do not stop reading here to rush out and make your boat seaworhty. Follow Anthony’s story on Watts Up With That? and think on it some, first… […]
Talk about history repeating itself. Jee-whiz, when will we ever learn. Is every generation or two doomed to this debacle?!
I’m just glad that Anthony or whoever found that – before they burned it.
But this time the wolf is coming for real! I swear… 😉
Can we keep records of all this. Wanna make sure my grandkids can laugh with me when I show them the NYT delusions just as I now laugh at the ice age scare in the mid 70s that the warmaholics are now trying to cover up.