They say a picture is worth a thousand words right? Depending on what you are trying to present, that picture can make or break any presentation.
So it was with great interest that I noticed this picture in the article from the UK Telegraph with this alarming title:
Climate change is ‘faster and more extreme’ than feared
Arctic sea-ice in September 1979 and 2007, showing the biggest reduction since satellite surveillance began. Photo: Fugro NPA Ltd
Hmmm…right below it there was a link to the World Wildlife Fund, and in the body of the article, was the source of this “news” story.
WWF’s report, Climate Change: Faster, stronger, sooner, has updated all the scientific data and concluded that global warming is accelerating far beyond the IPCC’s forecasts.
I didn’t realize that the WWF was a scientific organization, and that they could update the data and conclude our current situation worse that findings of the IPCC. How stupid of me to not pay attention to this.
CNN also picked up this WWF press release. See CNN’s story here.
Maybe WWF should “update” their findings with this picture from 2008:
Click for a larger image direct from the source
Yes a picture is worth a thousand words, isn’t it? For those of you that visit these other blogs, be sure they see this updated picture and send my regards. While you are at it, ask them at the Telegraph to provide the source data and methodology for the creation of the two images used in the report. They look more like artist renderings than data based 3D models. The images were not part of the WWF report.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anne, you have believed the lies that finance less scrupulous people than yourself. Global warming is not the issue here. The Mars “polar caps” are also “melting”. And it is true on other planets in our solar system. Jupiter’s original red spot is no more. Climate changes throughout the solar system signify a sea of change for all planets here, not just Earth. Sometimes I get the feeling that human egos are to blame for the myth that we are causing the climate changes here, when, in God’s eyes, we are mere fleas on its back!
Steven Hedge
I disagree – Mr Booker has good point regarding politics of EU and other oddities of man made political systems and also egg scares.
On Global Warming he’s applied the wrong standards to a complex question best analysed by science and then acted upon.
I personally think there is also a bigger question involved in deliberately changing the composition of the atmosphere .
What exactly are all of the consequences over an extended timescale?
Would you be happy to find that we deliberately changed the level of background radiation by thinly distributing radioactive waste across every part of the planet . It would only be a small change and it would solve the issue of storing radioactive waste.
Today’s Telegraph has a brief news report stating that the Arctic ice has rebounded this year. That’s progress, I guess….
Chris
And in Australia, the latest information from our government-owned TV network is that “Action on climate change is more urgent than ever”.
“Scientists are concerned that the will to tackle climate change has waned in the midst of the financial crisis, with the latest data showing climate change is moving more rapidly than they ever expected.”
This is from a news commentary program entitled “Lateline” – the transcript, featuring Dr Pachauri and some Australian IPCC contributors, is at:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2399646.htm
I’ve spent a week looking at the comments on this forum . It is unique in that no one is allowed to have an opinion supporting global warming
This is a ‘non-sceptic’ free zone and is self reinforcing.
Curiously …. it’s made me far more suspicious of the views presented here ( apart from the dangers of Scotch tape 🙂 ) … which was not the reason I originally visited this site.
I am sure it is possible that there are many well thought out articles and comments referred to here -however they are lost in the manipulation language used . Try counting the number of times you seen extra influencer words/phrases inserted into answers like sham , con , hysteria .
I think the best description of this web site is a ‘high pressure’ sales environment or a ‘cult’ mentality (…and I do know a bit about sales techniques)
My main concern – we are knowingly introducing ( or rather reintroducing) CO2 into the atmosphere at a measurable rate without having a clue about the long term consequences.
I’m not adding anything further – but for those happy with the status quo … keep gambling.
Reply: Please re-read your first two sentences. Note that you are free to post your opinion. ~Smokey, moderator
The 1979 image was taken at the end of a 30-year cool cycle and the new one at the end of a 30-year warm cycle. When will these folks get the message that arctic changes are not linear with time–they are cyclic! To have any scientific signicance, you need to compare the ice at the end of a warm period (1977-1998) with the end of the previous warm period (1915-1945)!
[…] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/20/uk-telegraph-falls-prey-to-photo-cherry-picking/ […]
Don J. Easterbrook (07:47:55) :
The 1979 image was taken at the end of a 30-year cool cycle and the new one at the end of a 30-year warm cycle. When will these folks get the message that arctic changes are not linear with time–they are cyclic!
If they are cyclic, wouldn’t the end of a cycle be at the same point as the beginning of a cycle, in other words: at each change of period to the other period, wouldn’t the values be the same?
Mark Jacobs (13:52:49) :
Jupiter’s original red spot is no more.
Quite the contrary, it has temporarily developed a few new ones. As of this day, the Big Red Spot is still there.
Care to elaborate on what links Jupiter’s Red Spot and the Earth’s climate?
Anne, you have believed the lies that finance less scrupulous people than yourself
How do you know how scrupulous I am? What more do you know of me?
Don J. Easterbrook (07:47:55) :
When do you get the the message that:
1. These images were not ‘taken’. They were generated by using satellite data and Photoshop. (and as far as I know, they accurately depict actual minimum sea ice extent for those years). If you don’t believe me, compare for yourself on The Cryosphere Today.
2. There were no satellites monitoring Arctic sea ice before 1979.