“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
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.
The New York Times predicting future events reminds me of Bob Ueker’s advice to baseball-playing Michael Jordan:
“Keep swinging! Eventually the ball will hit the bat.”
via IceCap:
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/story/614195.html
Re: http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.php?img=icef …and time machines:
Look at the forecast date:
ISSUED: Wednesday 23 July 2088
FORECAST VALID: Monday 28 July 2008
Another projection that can hindcast the future, er is it forecast the past?
“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.”
And, going back even further, 55 million years ago the Arctic was subtropical. Gives me a smile whenever the current stories say, “For the first time ever, the North Pole may be free of ice…”
World keeps spinnin’…..
Worth checking out this story “UN Climate Committe (IPCC) challenged by ‘gang of 4’ scientists. Is UN Officialdom split? ” at http://www.weatheraction.com/
THE WEEK IN SCIENCE: OUR MELTING NORTH; New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer
By WALDEMAR KAEMPFFERT.
Section: SPECIAL FEATURES EDUCATION-SCIENCE, Page XX7, 2972 words
TWO pieces of evidence were recently presented to substantiate the views held by most geologists that some day there will be no frozen North and that vessels will sail in Arctic seas now imperilled by ice floes.
_______________________
From the New York Times, January 28, 1934,
Look, I know it’s fun to point and say “Hey! Look at what they believed back then!”, but let’s be honest; are the sentiments of “climate scientists” from before the age of climatology really worth anything? To me, criticizing the climatological claims of 40 years ago is like criticizing the daily forecasts of the Weather Bureau back when it was part of the Army Signal Corps… oh wait, they didn’t make daily forecasts!
Any “climate science” from before the days of satellite data and GCM’s is really not worth anything in my book. It’s fun to reminisce about, though, I suppose.
twawki (01:03:59) Here is one for your diary; a story Anthony linked to some time ago:
Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.
Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/#comments
yes, the NYT has a problem, it’s Bush and the economy. I wonder if Obama can save them. LOL
RE: counters(05:27:03),
That argument is rather lame. Past civilizations were far more advanced than ours today and they did not have the equipment you mentioned above. So just because in the past we didn’t have the equipment it should be discredited? That’s pretty lame.
I read this article on a political blog 2 years ago. The point is rather obvious – that scientists and explorers 85 years ago worried about artic ice melt. If one remembers that ice flows threatened Atlantic shipping just a decade before (ie the Titanic), it isn’t difficult to surmise that the Artic itself sees rapid gains and losses in its ice cover. For it wasn’t 2 decades later that cold waters returned to the artic circle and the issue was quickly forgotten.
The Alarmist’s narrative would have us believe that the Artic Circle had a constant, thick, and extensive cover of ice until the 1980s. The opposite is probably more true.
…are the sentiments of “climate scientists” from before the age of climatology really worth anything? No more than the climate alarmism of today, counters. And, as has been pointed out, at least the article, despite the alarmist headline gave the skeptics side of things as well.
Any “climate science” from before the days of satellite data and GCM’s is really not worth anything in my book.
Yes, today we have “hockey sticks”, a huge improvement.
So…
You are disenchanted with the New York Times. What took you so long?
In the 1930’s, the NYT helped cover up and excuse acts of genocide that were to be on a par with the Nazi’s horror ten years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
Here is a rhetorical question:
What kind of person would read and trust the New York Times?
Apparently from their report on their profits there are not many.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
PS
I realize that this is a scientific blog, but I would recommend a political history book to the readership. “The Black Book of Communism” was written in French to document the “dark side” of Communism. (Translated and published in the US by Harvard University Press) They writers used historical records newly available in the formerly Communist countries after the fall of Communism. As an understanding of science is necessary to understand the AGW debate, an understanding of history is necessary to understand the current political debate and to assess current political figures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087
But what if the wind stops blowing?
Live from the North Pole
web cam:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html
it is updated daily
plenty of ice up there
“Look, I know it’s fun to point and say “Hey! Look at what they believed back then!”, but let’s be honest; are the sentiments of “climate scientists” from before the age of climatology really worth anything?”
Of course not. Just as today’s “predictions” are also worthless. Until some of these models have actually been scrutinized and validated, they are worthless. Speculation with some equations thrown in to give them a patina of legitimacy.
In a related story, The Anchorage Daily reports:
“Right now the so-called summer of ’08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.”
http://www.adn.com/life/story/473786.html
Too bad Charts show that the Arctic ice is increasing in size!
It’s dark! It’s dark! The sun has died. We’re all going to die!
Oh, wait, this has happened before.
Last night.
Never mind.
A friend in Anchorage says she’s freezing (various parts of her anatomy) off.
counters:
//but let’s be honest; are the sentiments of “climate scientists” from before the age of climatology really worth anything?//
I think we are in total agreement. Except maybe we have a different idea about when the “age of climatology” will begin .
counters:
It sounds like your are suggesting that pre-satellite era data is not worth considering. I’m sure I’m not the only one who would have problems with that. But if so, isn’t it interesting then that it’s precisely the satellite data on e.g. the the two Poles which tells us that there is some 1,000,000 sq km more ice in the Arctic this year compared to last year, that over the past two years Antarctic sea ice concentrations have set absolute high records,, that both SST satellite data and Argos deep ocean satellite data tell us the oceans are cooling at all depths, and that all this works out to the observation that the global climate system as a whole is shedding joules?
As for GCMs, for elementary reasons these are so flawed as to be dangerously useless.
counters:
“Let’s be honest.. ..before the age of climatology really worth anything.”
Simple laymen observations are the root of many research ideas. The computer models are only crude tools constructed to try and figure out what a human has observed. To say that the people that observed nature back then were more primitive than us is incorrect. We have yet to best Einstein and many other scientists of that time.
My litmus test is simple. When scientists can predict a simple hurricane seasons to within 10-15% accuracy I am willing to believe long term climate projections. You might say that they are not related. I say that the tools, data and real-time observations come from the same sources. The computer models are not the same, but the math and science, behind them are equal in their sophistication, and related in their goals.
We are incapable of predicting hurricane seasons currently. 2006 & 2007 are proof of that. A properly working hurricane modeling tool would have predicted slower 2006 and 2007 seasons.
Climate is no different. To say that the climate will do this or that in fifty or hundred years is fine. I will simply not believe it until you also can give a road map of how we get there. I think the 10-15% accuracy means that, 5-10 year cycles between now and then should be predicted today and observed in future years. The IPCC must provide such a road map. They don’t. No one can. Therefore it is ridiculous to make policy based on the current primitive predictions. I don’t have to be a scientist to make that observation. Any layman can.
Much ado about nothing…
Eventually, NYT’s coverage of an ice free north pole may be correct if they keep publishing fantasies like that.
BTW, it’s interesting counters alluded to satellite data. Satellite data of the earth’s temperatures are much more reliable than the doctored surface temperatures used by Hansen but I doubt counters agrees since based on his previous posts he seem to favor AGW. And, counters, why do you hide behind the pseudonym? Are you really Hansen, or Mann, or Jones, or Rabbet, or …..
SDA has the latest stock price graph of NYT up. I intuit that NYT will cease trading on the NYSE before the Arctic is open ocean.
I see a lot of comments saying that we didn’t have accurate temperature measurements until the satellites went up. My understanding is that the satellite data has also been adjusted to more closely match the surface measurements because of orbital drift, and ageing instruments. They are not as infallible as some here believe.
It was clear to me from the getgo that the article was an old one.
“How so?” you ask?
Simple: The rightmost column reflects the opinion of scientists that disagree.
The NYT long ago abandoned such practices.
“I think we are in total agreement. Except maybe we have a different idea about when the ‘age of climatology’ will begin .”
Very well put. It’s human nature to recognize people in the past as ignorant bumblers while not realizing that today we are still ignorant bumblers. The basic difference between warmists and skeptics is that skeptics are aware of their own ignorance.
Where is that today NYT?
What used to get Punched out now gets Pinched out.
It was clear to me from the getgo that the article was an old one.
I could tell right away from the map.
Evan Jones (16:36:21) :
It was clear to me from the getgo that the article was an old one.
“I could tell right away from the map.”
I spent as much time looking at the map as I did reading the article. I’m still not certain just what was hand lettered and what was commercial art. Very nice attention to details. I doubt a computer will ever be able to a map as nicely without a fair amount of help.
Yeah.
I have drawn so many maps in my time that I can do a coast of Norway in my sleep.
http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf
Newsweek, April 28th, 1975.
We’re all gonna DIIIIEEEEEEE!!!
Oh no, sorry, that was last week.
Evan Jones: “I have drawn so many maps in my time that I can do a coast of Norway in my sleep.”
Slarty Bartfast 🙂
“The Alarmist’s narrative would have us believe that the Artic Circle had a constant, thick, and extensive cover of ice until the 1980s. The opposite is probably more true.”
The alarmists narrative is religious in tone (taken from Michael Crichton, but he is right on…)
1) The earth has an “ideal” state that through “sin” we humans have caused it to leave. In this case (somehow completely ignoring climate history) the ideal state was the temperature average from 1980 to 2000. (I believe ?)
2) That through redemption, (using “renewable”, paying “tithing” (carbon tax), etc) we can “save” the planet.
3) They also view, “tribal life” as more “noble”, than modern life. But anyone with common sense knows that MOST tribes are savage people.
The entire thing is insane, and it’s absolutely disgusting how the media and corporate america have latched onto the idea, that changing your light bulb or riding the bus, can “save the planet”. Honestly it makes me sick every time I see a green commercial… it’s just so over the top and ridiculous!!!
My god, the ignorance here is mindboggling. Re: this years is LESS melt than last: and did you not notice the sawtooth nature of the fall? Do you idiots REALLY think it’s linear? 2005 biggest drop ever; 2006 rebound. Ooooh! 2007 new biggest drop ever; 2008 possible rebound. Ooooh! You tools wouldn’t know science if it kicked you if it the balls.
And who ever told you ANY of this would be linear, or that it ever was? It wasn’t, isn’t, and will never be. So cherry pick your data sets, children, then go throw your spitballs at real scientists. You know the people responsible for your utter foolishness, Exxon and the BuCheney admin now both admit to AGW, right? You know Bush lives in an off-grid home, right? Why do you think that is?
Back to the ice: You dingbats look to EXTENT, but pay no attention to CONCENTRATION. Worse, you pay even less attention to THICKNESS. The total MASS of the ice has dropped 80%. That’s right, it’s not just extent and concentration, but thickness, and we’ve actually lost not some 40+% of the baseline (extent), but 80%. But, hey, there’s nothing going on here!
Idiots.
REPLY: I was going to delete this, but decided to leave it as a textbook example of the kind of rhetoric that I routinely get (and sometimes delete) from anonymous cowards that hide behind a psuedonym and claim moral and intellectual superiority. It always seems to be about anger and Bush with these folks doesn’t it?
My God, things change? How awful!
The only thing certain here is that no one knows anything for certain. I’m tired of the know-it-alls. We have some evidence of change and we’re entitled to analyze it and see what we can make of it. But we’re not entitled — contrary to Al Gore, the U.N., Dr. James Hansen, the New York Times or anyone else — to start telling the whole world what kind of a problem it faces or what to do about it. It’s prudent to evaluate risk and see what measures it may justify. But so far there’s nothing sufficiently conclusive to go ahead and do anything. This applies whether the future is cooling or warming.
There’s a point at which you have to take what comes at you and do the best you can. No matter what we do, humans are not likely to ever be able to control the climate of this planet. Right now we can’t even predict next week’s weather with any certainly. How do you expect me to believe we can predict the climate 50 years from now? The fraud by so many (article above as example) makes it even harder to take this stuff seriously.
[…] clipped from wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com […]
Sorry, Anthony, this one’s just too easy – and fun – to pass up:
ccpo:
Wrong question. The right question: Since Al Gore is such a profligate energy waster, then how is he not a traitor to the human race, and to the planet?
See Snopes here: click
ccpo has probably gone skulking off to its’ AGWer troll-cave. Funny, how they don’t even seem to realize that their hate-filled ignorant rants actually produce more skeptics. Thanks for allowing it in, Anthony. I know it must get tiresome seeing them, though.
yeah!i am hearing the same news that polar ice caps are melting since a long time.we are making it faster day by day with our developments.However, making people realise the fact may solve the problem and iappreciate your blog in doing that work.
Dear Sir,
Please could you kindly give me the date your news paper publish the below article.
Michael D. Eisner, Chairman of the Walt Disney Company said,” we’re dealing with an industry where an unspoken strategy is that the killer app is piracy, their quarter -to- quarter growth is definitely pushed forward by people wanting to get anything for free on their television or computer or hand-held device”
it for research purpose.
Regards
Reply: As noted in the post, the New York Times published the article February 20, 1969.
[…] written about climate in the past, such as this article from the New York Times that says “the Arctic will soon be an open sea” or this one from the 1933 Monthly Weather Review “IS OUR CLIMATE CHANGING? A STUDY OF […]