UK Telegraph falls prey to photo cherry picking

Chris Wright (04:33:52) :
“40 million The amount of grain in tons lost each year due to rising atmospheric temperatures”. This is presented as a fact, and not a WWF claim (although it is also a WWF claim). Is this true?
Now you’re in my field of expertise! Definitely, a resounding no!! The relationship between temperature and yield is less that 50% of the relationship between precipitation and yield (other variables held constant) and is empahtically not linear. It is also species, plant family, and plant developmental stage dependent. Most species are especially susceptible to both precip. and temp. during pollination. C-4 plants (corn, milo, bermuda grass, hemp?) enzymatically thrive up to 92-96 F, but can be damaged during flowering at those temps, dramatically so if also under H2O stress. The linear causation the authors are ascribing to temp is as useless as the relationship between TSI and GISS (per Leif).
Anecdotally, if you recall this spring, wet conditions delayed corn planting in the Midwest (up to 35% of the corn was planted later than the “ideal” window)(USDA), leading to predictions of a corn shortage. However, in July-August during pollination the temps remained less than 95 F (plants don’t read GISS) and we received ample precipitation leading to treadline yields (increasing over time). Recent global warming is associated with rising precipitation in North America, which has increased yields (it has also been associated with tornados and flooding, but I digress) . My mother in law is currently harvesting 240 bu. corn in SW Nebraska (best ever). However, wheat pollination occurs in late April/early May. Last year about 30% of the wheat in Sumner County, KS (largest wheat producing County in Kansas by volume) was destroyed by an very abnormal (less than 3 years/100years) three week early freeze (apparently caused by continuing AGW). Did anyone notice the price of wheat then? /sarc off. This hadn’t occurred since the early 90’s. I want you all to look at the last time a solar minimum coincided with a PDO shift. Can you say DUST BOWL. Climatically, a negative PDO is unfortunately associated with higher SW USA/lower Midwest temps and lower precipitation (Bob Tisdale probably has a link). Since the USA is the world’s largest producer of exportable grains (USDA), I prefer the current warmth.

anne: Quite wrong, on the extent of the global cooling scare. This is some of the literature I have on the subject.
My summary of an NOAA paper on the history of climate offices:
1972 – Kukla-Mathews publishes in Science, an article about the end of the current inter glacial. Also writes a letter to Nixon in 1972, specifically warning about global cooling.
1973 – First Climate office started in Feb 1973 (ad hoc Panel on the Present Inter Glacial). This was after a meeting of 42 of the most prominent climatologists, and apparently there was consensus about cooling. Especially as the NOAA, NWS and ICAS were involved.
1974 – Office of Climate Dynamics opened.
1978 -Carter signs Climate Program Act, partly due to the SEVERE WINTER experienced the preceding winter.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw29_proceedings/Reeves.pdf
A NYT article, on scientists agreeing on cooling, circa 1961:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B11FB385B147A93C2AA178AD85F458685F9
From the founder of the Hadley Climate Center, H.H. Lamb:
….an abrupt return to conditions as they were before the well known warming of climates in the early twentieth century….
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1792334
Again from Lamb, circa 1969.
He stresses that the growing season may be shortened. A subscription is required. He also references MANY sources about cooling in this paper.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v223/n5212/pdf/2231209a0.pdf
From a UNESCO meeting in 1961, published in 1963. The meetings discussed cooling, and its implications on the world. Some 115 scientists from 36 countries took part in the symposium. The following is from the wrap up speech.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the evidence presented by Dr. Murray Mitchell, Dr. Rodewald and some of the other speakers is the way in which it falls into a pattern. Not only air temperature, but also subtropical rainfall, the tendency of hurricanes to move along certain tracks or seasurface temperatures, show a reversal of the preceding [warming] climatic trend during the last one or two decades. The true physical signiñcance of Dr. Murray Mitchell’s result lies perhaps in the combined evidence, based on so many different variables.
it has been extremely difficult by this means to avoid the conclusion that the warming trends [up to the 1940s] for the world as a whole, and for the Northern Hemisphere in particular, are truly planetary in scope. On the other hand, it cannot yet he demonstrated in this way beyond a reasonable doubt that the net cooling since the 1940s has likewise been planetary in scope. That this cooling is of such nature, however, seems reasonable and this should be verifiable if the cooling in the data areas were to continue for another decade or two in the future.
All authors have been able to show, by using records dating back to the end of the eighteenth century that the warming up of large parts of the world from the middle of the nineteenth century until recently has been statistically significant. However, as pointed out especially by J. M. Mitchell and also shown for sea temperatures by M. Rodewald this increase in temperature has recently declined.”
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0006/000698/069895mo.pdf
I have more, if you want. Note that the recent AMA bulletin by Petersen et al, regarding consensus on cooling, did not mention any of the above papers.

Anne (04:18:39) :
Like @barbee butts I graduated high school in the mid-70s (’76) and I vividly remember the ice age fear mongering that took place. My most memorable image is “we are 10,000 years over due for an ice age” which probably arose from the article you sited. Unlike barbee, I lived in Buffalo, NY where we had a mini ice age each November through April and I was able to finance my first year of college by shoveling snow. I also moved away to a warmer clime as soon as I reached the age of consent.
I didn’t read much peer reviewed literature at the time (Mad Magazine and High Times being my favorite publications) but, the coming ice age was deeply ingrained in the MSM much like global warming is today regardless of its scientific credibility. Some people bought it hook, line and sinker (sorry barbee) and others viewed it skeptically as I did and I do AGW.
So, I have two questions for you.
Since you do not appear to be old enough to remember the anecdotal evidence, why don’t you ask someone who is (and you trust) to help you better accept the reality we experienced in the past.
While you are at it, why don’t you Google “Global Cooling” leaving off the word “scare”? I got 23.5M results and investigating them might help you realize that in fact GC was the GW of the 70s.

@edcredwatch
I used Photoshop where the 1979 image was cut and put as layer with a difference mask on top.

Dan McCune (10:32:12) :
Perhaps a stupid question: What is MSM?
My most memorable image is “we are 10,000 years over due for an ice age” which probably arose from the article you sited.
Have you ever asked yourself how anyone could have taught you that, when the last ice age ended around 10.000 years ago, a fact well known at the time?
I live in The Netherlands and what I distinctly remember from my childhood were the longings for typical Dutch winters (snow & ice). Everybody was complaining about the mild winters and therefore lack of skating opportunities. Little chance of heated debates about an impending ice age under those circumstances.
Btw I am from 1965, so I think I should remember something from it.

James S (17:38:17) :
Sorry, missed your comment, that’s why I answer you last.
I read the page you linked to, and I will tell you right away that I am strengthened in my belief the global cooling scare is an exaggeration of what went on. I’ll try to explain.
The article quotes the report of the 1961 unesco climate conference.
From the 471 pages the author manages to find a paltry 4 quotes that are according to him more proof of a global warming scare. Read the four quotes and make your own judgement. This is mine:
Quote 1 talks about a ‘reversal of preceding [warming] climatic trend’, followed by: The true physical signifiance of Dr. Murray Mitchell’s result lies perhaps in the combined evidence, based on so many different variables. This last sentence expresses a large degree of uncertainty.
Quote 2 says the downward temperature trend is significant from a physical point of view, but not from a statistical point of view. Again, doubt. And don’t forget that the temperature trend WAS negative at the time. This quote is more a discussion of what was going on than a prediction of things to come.
Quote 3 was the one I already found myself and responded to in my previous post to Les Johnson.
Quote 4 repeats more or less the same message as quote 2 and is also expressing uncertainty.
So 4 quotes that stretch my imagination to its limit to interpret it as anything resembling a global cooling scare.
—————–
You might also be interested in my response to Les Johnson.

Gotta’ give the credit, they’re persistent…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081021/sc_nm/us_britain_arctic_1

Anne: your The true physical signifiance (sic) of Dr. Murray Mitchell’s result lies perhaps in the combined evidence, based on so many different variables. This last sentence expresses a large degree of uncertainty.
You couldn’t be more wrong. What the statement is saying, is that Dr. Mitchell’s results are remarkable because of the many different variables that agree.
reread that again…..

These researchers assert that the Arctic Ocean had periods of ice-free conditions on the north coast of Greenland 6000-7000 years ago: http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/
Maybe their research will simply be ignored, rather than attacked. It would be inconvenient for many people if the Arctic conditions thousands of years ago were like they describe, and inconvenient if those conditions so long ago sowed more seeds of doubt.
Too bad — it would be better to have a scientific examination of such things, rather than the stuff we usually get these days.

Les Johnson (13:58:15) :
You are correct that 1972 does not precede 1978. I was fooled by the fact that the link appeared below the mentioning of Carter signing a bill in 1978. I’ll honestly admit I didn’t read all your links from start to end, time is too short. You can quickly lose the attention of another poster. It’s usually no use coming back 2 weeks from now with a complete analysis. That’s why I also missed the full letter. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
Let’s go over your other comments.
“Consensus” means most, not all. One dissenting voice does NOT mean, NO consensus.
Correct, I’ll have to do better than that. But it will take time to find more examples, don’t expect anything soon though.
Also note, that Kellogg never stated that there was NO cooling. Just that man had little effect on the current climate.
I quote Kellog again:
The direction that this influence will take in the decades to come, […] must be that of a warming (emphasis added)
Worse, he explicitly states that he expects a warming.
that its getting colder? Which the scientists seemed to agree on. And which you agree on as well, going by your statement.
See below, my final remark.
Are you under the misapprehension that we are saying the consensus was that the recorded cooling, was anthropogenic?
No.
By 1970, the consensus was indeed, cooling. Witness Lamb’s papers (1965 and 1969), that you conveniently ignore.
I did not “conveniently” ignore these papers. Why assume malice? I couldn’t access the second one, you warned me for that. The first one didn’t struck me as particularly heavy on ‘cooling’. Having read it more thouroughlyin the mean time (English is not my native language) , there is mention of “a return to the regime that prevailed over long periods before 1895”, in this context that means cooling. And yes, there it is, one of the rare forward looking statement about cooling I encountered: “On this evidence, something like the climatic regime over the years since 1960 should probably be expected to persist till the end of the century or beyond”.
Hardly. The UNESCO meeting was 1961. The world had been cooling for only a few years at this point. No more than 10-15 years.
Only a few years? 10-15 years? Which is it? May I pick an option? Then I’ll pick 20 years, quoting from the unesco report: “..a warming in many parts of the world since about 1850 until a decade or two ago when in some places, but not all, there appears to have been a levelling-off or a fall of temperature…”.
This was my reaction. Have fun.
Final remark: I have come to the conclusion that I have to make a distinction. Yes, I agree that in the early 70’s many scientists (concensus or not, that still to figure out for myself) were of the opinion that the temperatures were falling. When you look at the temperature record, that comes hardly as a surprise. Temperatures WERE falling from 1940-1970.
What I object against is that there was a ‘scare’. The majority of references I have seen so far merely comment on the temperature developments at the moment. To qualify as a scare, there must also be a forward looking statement, projecting adverse consequences. There are very few of such statements. The only one I could perhaps label as such is the Kukla-Mathews article and letter.
And what was it that the scientist lobbied for? Taxes? Regulations? Public education? No, more research.
Now then there is the press coverage. I will need to dig into this deeper. Apart from the 1975 Newsweek article, I am not is sure what more there is.
Do you want the other references I have, or should we continue to thrash this out first?
Bring it on.

http://www.ogimet.com/cgi-bin/gsynres?lang=en&ind=04416&ano=2008&mes=10&day=21&hora=6&min=0&ndays=30
very cold on the greenland summit lately.

Mike Kelley (19:47) : “WWF are world-class envirocrits. They arrange expensive tours for the well-to-do to go around the globe”
http://www.goredearth.com/images/29arch.jpg

I emailed the Telegraph yesterday, mentioning the possibility of a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. Here is the reply from the Consulting Editor:
“This article summarised a report published by WWF, a well known charity describing itself as a leading independent environmental organisation. It takes the findings of the IPCC report of 2007 as its starting point but claims that important aspects of climate change have been underestimated.
We are perfectly entitled to publish a fair and accurate summary of the contents of the report whether or not you agree with it. I attach a copy, so that you can take up the issue of the grain loss with Messrs Lobell and Field whose research you challenge.
So far as the photographs are concerned, we obtained them from Philips Universal Atlas of the World (copy attached). We suggest you refer any accusations of doctoring to them.”
End of quote.
The atlas doesn’t appear to be online and it will cost you more than £100. This also probably explains why the image is a year out of date – though a cynic might observe that the 2008 image would have shown more ice.
I have the print version of the Telegraph article and the images are higher resolution. I’ve looked at them carefully. I have no doubt that they’re one and the same, with one crudely painted over to show the extra ice. Many parts of both images are identical. The extra white area’s edges are blurred, so it was very obviously paint-brushed in. The outlines also look unnatural. Whoever is responsible did a very crude job. He must have been in a hurry.
But the question remains, given that it was crudely air-brushed, how accurate is the portrayed image? The caption states that the images are for September. I therefore changed the Cryosphere dates to 14th September – and the air-brushed image is not so very different. I believe the data shown is reasonably accurate. It still seems questionable to present an air-brushed version from a different time and I’m surprised that Philips would publish something so crude, but on the question of accuracy it’s probably acceptable.
That just leaves one possible complaint: as always they are careful to effectively surround everything with quotes so they can’t be held accountable for any untruths. But the claim about 40 million tons of grain a year is presented as a fact and, as another poster stated, it almost certainly isn’t true. The editor quoted Lobell and Field, which I assume appeared in the WWF report.
I’ll look into this, but it looks as if a complaint to the PCC would fail. Foiled again….
Chris