Regular WUWT readers know of the issues related to Arctic Sea Ice that we have routinely followed here. The Arctic sea ice trend is regularly used as tool to hammer public opinion, often recklessly and without any merit to the claims. The most egregious of these claims was the April of 2008 pronouncement by National Snow and Ice Data Center scientist Dr. Mark Serreze of an ice free north pole in 2008. It got very wide press. It also never came true.
To my knowledge, no retractions were printed by news outlets that carried his sensationally erroneous claim.
A few months later in August, when it was clear his first prediction would not come true, and apparently having learned nothing from his first incident (except maybe that the mainstream press is amazingly gullible when it comes to science) Serreze made another outlandish statement of “Arctic ice is in its death spiral” and” The Arctic could be free of summer ice by 2030″. In my opinion, Serreze uttered perhaps the most irresponsible news statements about climate second only to Jim Hansen’s “death trains” fiasco. I hope somebody at NSIDC will have the good sense to reel in their loose cannon for the coming year.
Not to be outdone, in December Al Gore also got on the ice free bandwagon with his own zinger saying on video that the “entire north polar ice cap will be gone within 5 years“. There’s a countdown watch on that one.
So it was with a bit of surprise that we witnessed the wailing and gnashing of teeth from a number of bloggers and news outlets when in his February 15th column, George Will, citing a Daily Tech column by Mike Asher, repeated a comparison of 1979 sea ice levels to present day. He wrote:
As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.
The outrage was immediate and widespread. Media Matters: George Will spreads falsehoods Discover Magazine: George Will: Liberated From the Burden of Fact-Checking Climate Progress: Is George Will the most ignorant national columnist? One Blue Marble Blog: Double Dumb Ass Award: George Will George Monbiot in the Guardian: George Will’s climate howlers and Huffington Post: Will-fully wrong
They rushed to stamp out the threat with an “anything goes” publishing mentality. There was lots of piling on by secondary bloggers and pundits.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I got interested in what was going on with odd downward jumps in the NSIDC Arctic sea ice graph, posting on Monday February 16th NSIDC makes a big sea ice extent jump – but why? Then when I was told in comments by NSIDC’s Walt Meier that the issue was “not worth blogging about” I countered with Errors in publicly presented data – Worth blogging about?
It soon became clear what had happened. There was a sensor failure, a big one, and both NSIDC and Cryosphere today missed it. The failure caused Arctic sea ice to be underestimated by 500,000 square kilometers by the time Will’s column was published. Ooops, that’s a Murphy Moment.
So it is with some pleasure that today I offer you George Will’s excellent rebuttal to the unapologetic trashing of his column . The question now is, will those same people take on Dr. Mark Serreze and Al Gore for their irresponsible proclamations this past year? Probably not. Will Serreze shoot his mouth off again this year when being asked by the press what the summer ice season will bring? Probably, but one can always hope he and others have learned something, anything, from this debacle.
Let us hope that cooler heads prevail.
By George F. Will, Washington Post
Friday, February 27, 2009; A17
Few phenomena generate as much heat as disputes about current orthodoxies concerning global warming. This column recently reported and commented on some developments pertinent to the debate about whether global warming is occurring and what can and should be done. That column, which expressed skepticism about some emphatic proclamations by the alarmed, took a stroll down memory lane, through the debris of 1970s predictions about the near certainty of calamitous global cooling.
Concerning those predictions, the New York Times was — as it is today in a contrary crusade — a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported that “a major cooling of the climate” was “widely considered inevitable” because it was “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950.” Now the Times, a trumpet that never sounds retreat in today’s war against warming, has afforded this column an opportunity to revisit another facet of this subject — meretricious journalism in the service of dubious certitudes.
On Wednesday, the Times carried a “news analysis” — a story in the paper’s news section, but one that was not just reporting news — accusing Al Gore and this columnist of inaccuracies. Gore can speak for himself. So can this columnist.
Reporter Andrew Revkin’s story was headlined: “In Debate on Climate Change, Exaggeration Is a Common Pitfall.” Regarding exaggeration, the Times knows whereof it speaks, especially when it revisits, if it ever does, its reporting on the global cooling scare of the 1970s, and its reporting and editorializing — sometimes a distinction without a difference — concerning today’s climate controversies.
Which returns us to Revkin. In a story ostensibly about journalism, he simply asserts — how does he know this? — that the last decade, which passed without warming, was just “a pause in warming.” His attempt to contact this writer was an e-mail sent at 5:47 p.m., a few hours before the Times began printing his story, which was not so time-sensitive — it concerned controversies already many days running — that it had to appear the next day. But Revkin reported that “experts said” this columnist’s intervention in the climate debate was “riddled with” inaccuracies. Revkin’s supposed experts might exist and might have expertise but they do not have names that Revkin wished to divulge.
As for the anonymous scientists’ unspecified claims about the column’s supposedly myriad inaccuracies: The column contained many factual assertions but only one has been challenged. The challenge is mistaken.
Citing data from the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, as interpreted on Jan. 1 by Daily Tech, a technology and science news blog, the column said that since September “the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began.” According to the center, global sea ice levels at the end of 2008 were “near or slightly lower than” those of 1979. The center generally does not make its statistics available, but in a Jan. 12 statement the center confirmed that global sea ice levels were within a difference of less than 3 percent of the 1980 level.
So the column accurately reported what the center had reported. But on Feb. 15, the Sunday the column appeared, the center, then receiving many e-mail inquiries, issued a statement saying “we do not know where George Will is getting his information.” The answer was: From the center, via Daily Tech. Consult the center’s Web site where, on Jan. 12, the center posted the confirmation of the data that this column subsequently reported accurately.
The scientists at the Illinois center offer their statistics with responsible caveats germane to margins of error in measurements and precise seasonal comparisons of year-on-year estimates of global sea ice. Nowadays, however, scientists often find themselves enveloped in furies triggered by any expression of skepticism about the global warming consensus (which will prevail until a diametrically different consensus comes along; see the 1970s) in the media-environmental complex. Concerning which:
On Feb. 18 the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that from early January until the middle of this month, a defective performance by satellite monitors that measure sea ice caused an underestimation of the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles, which is approximately the size of California. The Times (“All the news that’s fit to print”), which as of this writing had not printed that story, should unleash Revkin and his unnamed experts.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Update on Resolute’s climate in Canada:
Average HIGH for February: -30C
Average LOW for February: -37C
Record LOW: -52C, Jan 1966.
So at -50C, the Catlin Arctic Survey expedition is experiencing near record low temperatures for a February. No wonder they are having problems with their equipment.
Well, all the hard work is for not!
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-elements-energy27-2009feb27,0,641645.story?track=rss
Cap and Trade is coming to an energy bill near you.
When folks finally get a look at the results of their
advocacy, punch drunk comes to mind!
“But the administration argues that action cannot
be delayed on climate change and that, over time,
the plan will help the economy recover and grow again.”
Oh really? well, that’s OK then……if it saves the
economy and the planet! And what about the third world poor?
This is truly sad!
It was a nice try Mr. Will.
John Philip, you’re comparing George Will with George Monbiot?? Please. The only possible comparison is with their given names: click click click [All links from another site I ran across recently.]
And Joel Shore, it appears that you are correct about a few of my past links to graphs coming from ICECAP, at least in a roundabout way. “Appears” is the operative word here, since as I said I don’t visit the site [or didn’t until yesterday; I may start to check it out now]. I’m sure I copied the charts from links by other WUWT posters. I like charts, and I’m a big believer in their value as visual aids; some people’s eyes tend to glaze over when faced with reams of technical explanations, and charts like these cuts to the chase: click click click
I’ve read George Will often in the past, though, and the frenzy with which the AGW crusaders have attacked him over their belief that they can read his mind, and know exactly what he meant with no other possible interpretation, is typical of their mob style and counter to the many years of rational comment that is Will’s trademark.
Amazingly, those same AGW promoters generally accept at face value and without question the pronouncements of Al Gore, James Hansen, George Monbiot, Michael Mann and the UN/IPCC politicians at face value. I’ll take Will’s well constructed and unemotional columns any time over those folks with an AGW agenda.
@cabrerski (16:46:23) :
“My wife and I have started a little game…
Every time we hear something incredulous, we attribute it to global warming. For example:
“It’s 13 below zero today. Must be global warming.”
“The New York Times subscription numbers are down again. Gotta tip the hat to global warming.”
“HE WAS WIDE OPEN…HOW DID HE DROP THAT BALL!!!!! Man, I hate this global warming!!!”
Spot on, sir! I’ve been using the phrase ‘That’s global Warming for you”, for some time now, to describe unwanted events and I’ve gained a modicum of gloat as others, around me, have trotted out the same phrase!
It’s amazing just how quickly catch-phrases – err – catch on.
No. Will is attempting to rewrite history – Feb 15th is the relevant date, unless you want to redefine the word now, here is the Arctic Climate Research Center’s response in full …
In an opinion piece by George Will published on February 15, 2009 in the Washington Post, George Will states ‘According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.’
We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.
It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts. ,
Monbiot and others are still right, then.
Besides which, if a method gives one result in January, and a different one in February it indicates the method is not robust, no?
The public is growing suspicious of AGW, much the same as they grow tired of watching the same movie plot too many times. It was cool for 15 minutes, and it was hot for 15 minutes. Journalists too, such as George Will, grow skeptical and see easy pickins for scathing articles in which to roast thier unwitting prognosticators.
Top proponents of AGW don’t see it coming, thinking they can handle the backlash with data monkeying and forecast twisting. It won’t work. The 15 minutes of fame works both ways. They are now in the crosshairs of MSM finger puzzles. The harder they struggle, the tighter they will squeeze them.
My advice to them is to go queitly, or get used to nursing your self-inflicted wounds.
John Philip (03:44:55) :
our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979.
These figures don’t account for the changes in the definition of coastal ice and sea ice which have taken place. These lower the extent measure in newer readings.
“I think if this summer’s melt does not exceed the 2008 melt then the public will become suspicious. :-)”
If only that were the case. “The Public” doesn’t even get suspicious when a half-million miles of ice disappears almost overnight. “The Public” doesn’t get suspicious when C02 continues to rise while temps level off or drop. “The Public” doesn’t get suspicious when oceans DON’T rise, polar ice caps DON’T melt, the Northwest passage DOESN’T open up…etc…etc.
No…”The Public” won’t be bothered by a slight shift in ice at all. They’re either A) too lazy, B) feel too powerless, C) don’t have time to understand the issue, D) think that taxing the bejeezus out of everything that breathes and walks upright is exactly the correct thing to do for any number of reasons.
JimB
Richard111 (23:58:06) :
Pete Seeger – written in 1956 – “Where have all the flowers gone?”.
Covered many times.
Pete was an environmentalist when that actually meant protection of the environment and not merely protection of environmentalists and their salaries.
His testimony before the House Unamerican Activities Committee is a study in patience. We deniers could, and possibly must, learn much from his encounter with government. He was sentenced to a year in jail for contempt of Congress but appealed his case successfully after a fight that lasted until 1962.
Current “green” policy and its advocates are the environment’s worst enemy. They are ignoring, or wilfully ignorant of real problems as they focus on their altered reality. Meanwhile the real polluters laugh all the way to the carbon bank.
I could only hope that Mr Will will now take on the discovery of that “Miracle Water” in the Antarctic. You know what I’m talking about – that’s where when the average temperature down there went up 1 degree F over 52 years (1957-2009) from -51 all the way to -50, that the ice started melting twice as fast! Maybe the Anti-Freeze conglomerate is trying to keep this new discovery hidden.
“If we’re discussing what the facts MEAN…we’re having a debate. If we’re discussing what the facts ARE, then we’re lost in a …”
I forget the rest of the quote…but you can pretty much infer the meaning…
And it’s what’s taking place with Phillips/Shore/Smokey.
Need to agree on facts, or it will never move forward.
JimB
Joel Shore,
I presume that you write these posts yourself, which would imply that you can write.
But, if, when you went to school, did they teach you to read? Try some history, it can on occasions be quiet enlightening (as in sun)
“Robert Bateman (03:48:32) :
The public is growing suspicious of AGW, much the same as they grow tired of watching the same movie plot too many times.”
I agree. And we seem to be seeing more articles to that effect. However, as I said in my 04:09:19, there are a host of reasons that this seems to not have any real impact.
Look at the polling for the bank bailout…about %85 of the country opposed that action. Approval rating for Congress? About %12? How many Ethanol plants are still being built in the midwest, even though science has show the benefits to be marginal, at best. If we get to the point where %85 of the population are against Cap and Trade, the result will be the same. Until there is a clear cut means to turn that into meaningful action, I fear it will have little to no impact on events in our government.
JimB
John Philip (03:44:55) :
No. Will is attempting to rewrite history – Feb 15th is the relevant date, unless you want to redefine the word now, here is the Arctic Climate Research Center’s response in full ….
I have the impression that Cryosphere removed the comment after an interaction with Anthony who pointed out that the article had first appeared in December. Unfortunately the search engine here is not helpful in finding stuff, so I cannot link to the post.
JimB (04:09:19)
There is also the lack of information in the media informing ‘The Public’ and giving them choices without bias.
I haven’t seen this http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/629.pdf (41kb) reported in the MSM but I did glimpse it somewhere on the web during the past few days and finally found the source.
Les Francis (02:09:51) wrote: … lecture tours and promotion of his “We are not alone” theory? Chariots of the God’s
Memory Lane stuff, Les. I really wanted to believe him…
Of course the the difference in wanting to believe him and wanting to believe AWG is that in the former no one got hurt.
Joel Shore (14:20:51) :
“Does anybody think that Will has actually been honest here in using the Shackleton quote in the context that he did given the context in which it actually appeared?”
Mr. Shore attempts to challenge Will’s honesty by selecting a single quote from a paragraph documenting the media’s trumpeting of global cooling in the 1970s. The point of the paragraph was to clearly demonstrate the “consensus” amongst experts and their media wags that *global cooling* was the climatic catastrophe du jour. Will includes 19 different quotes from various journals and publications, especially the NY Times. Shore selects the quote “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” which Will correctly credits to Dec. 10, 1976 Science magazine – to challenge.
Perhaps Mr. Shore is unaware of argumentation’s process of foundation as the basis for drawing conclusion. What Mr. Will was doing with razor-sharp accuracy was demonstrating the then media and expert “consensus” for catastrophic global cooling. That the quote Shore challenges was originally issued by Shakleton and references a 20,000 year trend is utterly irrelevant. To suggest that it is an indication of dishonesty on Mr. Will’s part is to confirm Mr. Shore’s confusion with the English language. ALL the quotes in the paragraph are taken out of context for the express purpose of demonstrating the vast media and expert acceptance 30 years ago of global cooling.
To further Mr. Shore’s confusion he goes on to ask: “Does anybody believe that this prediction is not also basically in line with current scientific thought…?” If this is his belief then his many protestations favoring global warming would indicate his own questionable “honesty.”
Marker (01:32:51) wrote in part of his 8th grade self: Seeing the cooling juggernaut and the Malthusian lunacy of “The Population Bomb” both completely disproved by subsequent events In fact, the “Coolists” of the seventies essentially inoculated me to the “Warmists” of the nineties. They helped make me a better and more committed “inactivist”! …
Seeing the cooling juggernaut and the Malthusian lunacy of “The Population Bomb” both completely disproved by subsequent events …
Those memories give me considerable hope, Marker, that the obscene terrifying of children by the AGW industry may have a redeeming feature (though not justification).
Unfortunatele, it also has the negative effect of blunting the cry of ‘Wolf!” when that cry is true and urgent. (Which is of course the message and the moral of the original.)
Joel Shore (18:24:45) :
“Furthermore, even the views presented in the press tend to be exaggerated in retrospect. For example, George Will’s column quotes quite a bit from a New York Times article that appeared on May 21, 1975 entitled “Scientists ask why world climate is changing; major cooling may be ahead” but strangely gives no quotes from another article by the same reporter on August 14, 1975 that is entitled “Warming trend seen in climate; two articles counter view that cold period is due.” Go figure!”
Nor did he include this article by the same reporter December 21, 1975, some four months later:
“Experts Fear Great Peril If SST Fumes Cool Earth”
An article detailing how carbon emissions from supersonic transports in the stratosphere will cause global cooling. Go figure!
The truth about GW is located inside the Goracle’s Bank Account.
Time to accept the challenge from John Kerry?
Facts Are Stubborn Things: George Will and Climate Change
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/facts-are-stubborn-things_b_170657.html
“Stubborn or stupid — lets have a real debate and lets have it now.
I know George Will well, I respect his intellect and his powers of persuasion — but I’d happily debate him any day on this question so critical to our survival.”
So it means John Kerry disagrees with Al Gore…. the debate isn’t over after all?
“REPLY: It has been fixed (by switching to a different sensor platform) and Walt Meir has promised a guest post about it on WUWT, but he’s missed three promised self imposed deadlines now, so I may just put up my own analysis. – Anthony”
OK, now how about the graph of ice area? The sensor underestimated the amount if ice by 500K km^2. The graph hasn’t changed. IF there was 500K km^2 more ice than being reported, than the revised graph should show an increase now.
Why doesn’t it?
REPLY: That’s why I’ve been waiting for Walt…but it appears he’s AWOL on the guest post. – Anthony
B. Kerr
You are not alone in your confusion – I too am watching the series on Scottish ITV where the advert “compare the meercat” / “compare the market” heightens one’s feelings of impending madness. Billy Connolly’s odyssey implies a full navigation of the North West Passage, and I can’t wait to see the final episode. Will he come out the other side? Will I come out the other side…….Aaaaah?
FatBigot (21:29:52)
Brilliant
Smokey says:
Smokey, thanks for the the admission…Or sort of admission. However, I guess it doesn’t particularly give me a warm fuzzy feeling to hear that you link to charts that other people post without asking any questions about them, such as who is the original source of these charts, what agenda might they have, and in what ways might the charts be deceptive? That hardly seems like the the motis operandi of a “skeptic” in the larger sense of the word.