Image from WUWT reader “Boudu”
The Guardian’s George Monbiot suffers (at his own expense) from excessive zeal in trying to disprove a statement by Telegraph Columnist, Christopher Booker, in his post: How to disprove Christopher Booker in 26 seconds
I set the stopwatch running, pasted “National Snow and Ice Data Center” into Google, found the site, clicked on News and Events > Press room > Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis and discovered that Booker’s claim was nonsense. It took me 26 seconds.
But then a couple of hours later, when commenters on his blog point out Monbiot’s own error in his 26 second rebuttal, he admits he’s “boobed”:
Whoops – looks like I’ve boobed. Sorry folks. As one of the posters on this thread points out, there are in fact two averages in play – 1979-2000 and 1979-2009. It is therefore correct to state that the April 2009 extent exceeds the 1979-2009 average, but not the 1979-2000 average. It remains the case, however, that the data relate to April, not May. Please accept my apologies for my mistake and the confusion it has caused.
He also confused Global and Polar.
Booker’s article said:(underline mine)
“..the world’s polar sea ice is in fact slightly above its average extent for early May since satellite records began in 1979.”
Monbiot’s rebuttal said:
“In other words, Arctic sea ice extent for April is in fact slightly below its average extent since 1979, not slightly above.”
Meanwhile in comments for the Monbiot 26 second rebuttal, some people think the picture of the U.S.S Skate nuclear submarine surfacing at the North Pole in 1959, as reported here. is a fake due to the photo being taken in “twilight”.
One commenter points out the official US Navy record:
Now you are trashing the source of the historical photo of the USS Skate surfacing at the North Pole on 17 March 1959, claiming that such a surfacing could not have occurred on this date.
Check the OFFICIAL U.S. Navy historical archive on site:
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/datesmar.htm
Click on MARCH.
Scroll down and you will read for March 17:
1959 – USS Skate (SSN-578) surfaces at North Pole
Proof enough for you?
Apparently not.
The problem with that photo is that it was taken in daylight, whereas the Skate surfaced on March 17, before sunrise at the North Pole. That set off a flurry of troofer factoids trying to turn day into night.
I guess some people don’t understand the period of twilight, how much light would be available, and how B&W long exposure photography works.
Indeed, the discussion has become the Twilight Zone.
” Jeff Id (19:09:03) :
It is therefore correct to state that the April 2009 extent exceeds the 1979-2009 average, but not the 1979-2000 average.
This is another confirmation of my gridded ice area post.”
—————————-
How nice of Monbiot to confirm your hypothesis. [sarc]I am sure he will be thrilled[/sarc]
I have said before that we are losing the propaganda war-witness the silly hero worship of Pen Hadow-who brave man that he is-did not accomplish any scientific aims. Monbiot consistently boobs with his green science but is very influential.
As he is so disparaging of Monckton (see link to the deck of cards mentioned by Justthefacts)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/mar/09/climate-change-deniers-monbiot-cards?picture=344343776
it would look very odd if he refused an open debate with him. Monbiots profile might mean it could get some tv, radio, or press coverage. Possible venue the Royal Society-as their motto is ‘Nobodys word is final’ they could hardly refuse to stage it on any scientific grounds.
Anyone think it a good idea? If so the first step is to find if Monckton is up for it. We could issue a challenge a la the Diet of Worms by pinning a proclamation to a tree outside the Met office (and publicise the action on the net!)
http://www.peacemakers.net/unity/foxbookofmartyrs.htm#9
It would be a modern day duel which, if Monbiot refuses to participate, will diminish him. If he accepts it would be played out most approriately at the warmist Royal Society by invoking the Met office through a proclamation rooted in religion. A scenario which has certain parallels with the new religion of AGW and the new authorities of the Met office/Guardian/Monbiot and the allegories may appeal to a classic scholar such as Monckton.
tonyb
According to his own blog, George Monbiot has cerebral malaria. Draw your own conclusions……
TonyB
The Monckton / Monbiot open debate is a great idea, but I believe that Monbiot is certainly aware of Monckton’s higher IQ and greater degree of awareness of all the many scientific uncertainties surrounding the premise that AGW is a real and serious threat.
So it can only be a “lose/lose” situation for Monbiot.
Monckton, on the other hand, would need to be enticed somehow to engage with an obviously inferior debate partner like Monbiot. Yes, he could make mincemeat out of Monbiot (in less than 36 seconds BTW), but it would almost look like a school bully beating up on a smaller boy.
In other words, even if he “won” the debate, he might “lose” some points to poor Monbiot, just out of sympathy for the underdog.
A delicate situation.
But an open debate between the two would be very entertaining and educational, I agree.
Max
For an excellent article including many photos of the Skate at the North Pole, please see the National Geographic of July 1959 “Up Through the Ice of the North Pole” by Comdr. James F. Calvert, USN. It explains the search for Polynas through which to surface and has photos which clearly show the low angle of the sun.
Should “Cap and Trade” be more accurately be called “Pork and Beans”?
This global warming scam is a great opportunity for Obama to steal from his opponents and reward his friends, all under the phony guise of “the environment”.
Moderator: Thought the site might be interested in this article on the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/science/earth/18juneau.html
It documents the well established isostatic response of land rising following ice cap melting. To any geologist this is not news, but will the public at large recognize that sea level rise is not guaranteed or uniform around the world?
While Wikipedia is often a good source of information, or of leads to real information, its open editing means that it should always be used with caution. Thus, anyone could edit the USS Skate page to say that the photo in question depicts the Skate surfacing on the moon, and that is what it would say until someone took to the trouble to change it back.
However, according to Wikipedia’s own source, http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm, the Skate photo in question depicts
The positioning of the commas implies that it is a photo of the Skate surfaced at the N. Pole on 17 March, and not just not a file photo of the Skate, which surfaced at the N Pole on 17 March, but which was taken at some other time and place.
Navsource sounds like a pretty official site, so the burden of proof is now on those who would question the date of the photo (if not the surfacing).
But personally, I’m still skeptical — where’s the ice that would be expected during the last week of winter? The photo AKD links above (5/17, 14:54:28) is more like what I would expect. Navsource got the photo from “tripod.com”, and not directly from Navy archives. Someone (not me) needs to go in person to the Navy Archives and get the straight source on this photo. (The National Military Achives are in Alexandria VA, where the staff is very helpful. But maybe this is still to recent to be there, and so may be at some Navy site. A few phone calls would turn up someone eager to help.)
The light doesn’t bother me, even though this is 4 days before “sunrise”. As the sun approaches the horizon, the sky lights up enough to take a photo with a long exposure. And when does the sun actually break the horizon? The moment of the equinox must be when the sun is half way above the horizon. At the poles, how many days does it take to get there from first light?
I’m reminded here of Sen. Peter Dominick’s blooper (boober?) at the 1964 Republican convention, when he triumphantly quoted a 1776 NY Times editorial denoucing the rebels for their “extremism in defense of liberty”. It turned out the NY Times hadn’t been founded yet, and the original source was just a satire piece that had first appeared in the YAF magazine and then got passed around enough to sound real. It always pays to check your sources before going too far out on a limb!
REPLY: Hugh, see this navy.mil URL:
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/datesmar.htm
Note the 17th, and what is printed. It matches the photo caption exactly. – Anthony
RE a reader, 5/18, 06:27:24,
Thanks for the reference, but unfortunately my NGs don’t go back quite to 1959.
Does this article have the “Skate, surfaced at the N Pole” photo? If so, how does it explain it? If it has other photos, are they equally ice free?
I live in Britain, but I don’t generally read the Guardian, and this hasn’t given me any reason to start. However I have now read the Monbiot article and the comments below it about the Skate.
“a reader” above draws attention to a more trustworthy source, Commander Calvert’s own account of the arctic journey.
The main discrepancy seems to be in his account of the ice conditions, where he writes
“Both sides of the lead were piled with the heaviest and ruggedest hummocks I had yet seen in the Arctic. It was a wild and forbidding scene.”
This seems to be what the Guardian forum has now latched onto. Does anyone know anything about this?
[snip – no name calling please – Anthony]
This may help:
“http://passporttoknowledge.com/antarctica/researchers/katymcnitt/katymcnitt_jnl18.html”
From the South Pole, Civil Twilight begins two weeks before the equinox. The NH equivalent would be March 6. After that, sky brightness doubles every two days until the equinox. That indicates plenty of light to be found at 4 days before the equinox, on March 17.
As one commenter pointed out on the Guardian blog, we know of several formerly pro-AGW scientists who have now crossed over into the skeptical camp, but do you know of any who have gone the other way?
“We are probably pushing on an open door and quite soon voter power will cause a U turn in political attitudes.”
Um, already did.
manacker (05:30:59) : said
“TonyB
The Monckton / Monbiot open debate is a great idea, but I believe that Monbiot is certainly aware of Monckton’s higher IQ and greater degree of awareness of all the many scientific uncertainties surrounding the premise that AGW is a real and serious threat. So it can only be a “lose/lose” situation for Monbiot.
Monckton, on the other hand, would need to be enticed somehow to engage with an obviously inferior debate partner like Monbiot. Yes, he could make mincemeat out of Monbiot (in less than 36 seconds BTW), but it would almost look like a school bully beating up on a smaller boy.
In other words, even if he “won” the debate, he might “lose” some points to poor Monbiot, just out of sympathy for the underdog.”
Good point Max as regards Mockton likely to be so superior he might appear to bully Monbiot-I think thats something the majority of us Brits could easily accept though 🙂
Seriously, Monbiot is considered probably the UK’s leading environmentalist, he has a regular column in a national newspaper, a large following and the ear of the govt. He rebukes people like Monckton so regularly as being wrong, that the environmentalists probably believe their own propaganda. I think Monckton (a relative unknown) has the capability of running rings round Monbiot-but Monckton would be seen as the underdog.
Could others here please see my 03 04 58 as I would appreciate additional comments on the idea of promoting a debate between Monckton and Monbiot at a national venue such as The Royal Society.
Tonyb.
Anthony, take a look at the first link within this Google News search):
http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=monbiot
So if PrisonPlanet.com reprints an article from WUWT, its Google News worthy, but WUWT on its own isn’t?
If you haven’t already, perhaps you should submit your site to Google News directly: http://www.google.com/support/news_pub/bin/request.py?page=&extra.CustomerType=publisher&contact_type=suggest&extra.Language=+%3Ecs+var%3ACGI.convertedLang+%3F%3E+&master=suggest&Action.Search=Continue
What makes WUWT such a reliable news source is its combination of expert writers and rigorous peer review from a diverse group of commentators. Reading a full thread on WUWT provides more fact checking, alternative view points, incisive analyses and valuable information on Earth’s climate, than any MSM news source I have seen, heard or read.
To expand on the National Geographic article and pics–the Skate made 2 cruises to the arctic. The first was in August 1958 and was to try out an inertial navigational device that would allow them to find open water through which to surface. In 11 days they surfaced 9 times, went 2405 nautical miles, and took 652,000 soundings to map the seafloor. Many of the ice lakes are “good sized”. The next voyage was in March 1959 to test the feasibility of surfacing during the greatest ice extent. They surfaced 10 times on this voyage, but all were through leads frozen over with thin ice they called “skylights”. About this March trip, they said “Our 5th surfacing was noteworthy for the fact that on the way up, we saw a 2 foot puddle of open water, the first and last open water we saw on the entire cruise.” The picture from Navsource doesn’t appear in the article, but many from the August voyage look much like it. The pictures from the March voyage show a low angle sun on March 22, 300 miles from the Pole. The March 17 photo at the North Pole shows a ceremony illuminated artificially. The ceremony was to leave the ashes of Sir Hubert Wilkins who had tried to go to the Pole in a conventional sub in 1931. The story says the” winter sun still hid below the horizon” during the ceremony. There are 40 pages of info and pics in the article–a great read and not easy to find. I couldn’t find the article online, so I finally just bought an old copy.
BTW, does anyone know why the comments on the Grauniad blogs take so long to appear/refresh? Just clunky arts-graduate web design, or a deliberate ploy to slow down posters? The ones on here are instant by comparison!
FYI, I have attempted to add the Skate photo to the various arctic ice related articles on wikipedia and they’ve all been deleted by warmists demanding references etc. I’d appreciate getting more folks on the job of helping to put the photos back and helping to keep them there. Were’ in a war against skilled propagandists and revisionists, folks…
Sorry to come late to this rather enjoyable party, but one of the many things most of us admire about WUWT (and Climate Audit) is the civilised tone of its discourse, free of gratuitous abuse and name-calling. That is why I plead guilty to occasionally referring to Mr Monbiot in my Sunday Telegraph column as ‘Moonbat’, but it is always prefaced by the respectful epithet ‘Great’, as in ‘the Great Moonbat’. I agree that it was good of the old fruit (affectionate British term) to do his ‘woops’ number so promptly, when a reader pointed out of the various errors in his latest attack on me. I might also point out in this context that it was me in very much younger days, when I was editor of the British satirical magazine Private Eye, who first coined the term Grauniad for the newspaper which Mr M now adorns (in those days it was known for its multiple misprints, a form of Tourette’s syndrome – these days it leaves its writers to make the mistakes). It was also typically modest of Anthony not to mention the fact that the Great Moonbat’s attack also included some rather disparaging references to WUWT, because I am often cite it in y column. It is an honour to share the firing line with the Great Watts (this time no irony). i
,
Hu McCulloch (08:08:11) :
“Navsource sounds like a pretty official site, so the burden of proof is now on those who would question the date of the photo (if not the surfacing). ”
I have to disagree, you should stick with your skepticism. Navsourse is not an official site, they do not provide specific documentation of their source, and the Navy site does not include the picture.
The burden of proof is on the one that uses the picture to make a specific claim, not on those that question the claim.
Throwing some cold water on the Wiki/Navsource photo,
http://gallery.pictopia.com/usni/gallery/S622834/photo/6925612/?o=1
From the archives of the USNI. While the caption is very suggestive is does not explicitly state the picture is from March 17th 1959. You’ll notice that there is plenty of light in this picture as well. This seems to be a picture from a 1959 surfacing, but there appears real shadows in this one, which would mean that picture is *not* from March 17.
What strikes me about this picture though is the angle and distance of the sub in the picture from the camera, and what appears to be thin ice/slush, at most a thickness of around a foot when the sub surfaced. Also, the ice lines on the front of the sub coincide with the same on the Wiki picture. There were likely more than one picture taken at that surfacing, and a lot could change in a 24 hour period of time. It may be the Wiki picture is of the same day, perhaps when the lead opened up or the sub wandered into more open water, but this is only conjecture.
Mike Lorrey (13:42:23) :
“FYI, I have attempted to add the Skate photo to the various arctic ice related articles on wikipedia and they’ve all been deleted by warmists demanding references etc. I’d appreciate getting more folks on the job of helping to put the photos back and helping to keep them there. Were’ in a war against skilled propagandists and revisionists, folks…”
You do skeptics no favor here, Mike. Demanding references is not propaganda or revisionism. Attempting to enter undocumented photos as evidence of some event is. Wiki has made a correction to their Skate page and picture, with the addition of “date and location unclear” and “incomplete address” on the author source on their picture page.
That was the *right* thing to do. If you think Wiki is hiding a real and verifiable reference to this photo, provide it. Claiming that “tripod” has a picture taken by a “sailor” doesn’t cut it, especially when you can’t go to “tripod” or the Navy to find the “sailor” or the picture.
From my earlier “This seems to be a picture from a 1959 surfacing”,
http://www.csp.navy.mil/asl/Timeline.htm
“1959 USS SKATE (SSN 578), CDR James F. Calvert, conducted first through-ice surfacing at the North Pole (Dr. W.K. Lyon)”
Skate hyperlinked to:
http://www.csp.navy.mil/asl/ScrapBook/Boats/Skate1959.jpg
IF this is the first ice surfacing, it may have been in March of 1959.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Skate_(SSN-578)
“In early March 1959 , she again headed for the Arctic to pioneer operations during the period of extreme cold and maximum ice thickness. The submarine steamed 3,900 miles (6,300 km) under pack ice while surfacing through it ten times. On 17 March, she surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste.”
a reader (11:57:12) :
“To expand on the National Geographic article and pics–the Skate made 2 cruises to the arctic. The first was in August 1958 and was to try out an inertial navigational device that would allow them to find open water through which to surface. In 11 days they surfaced 9 times, went 2405 nautical miles, and took 652,000 soundings to map the seafloor. Many of the ice lakes are “good sized”. The next voyage was in March 1959 ”
Is there any reference in the article about when the first cruise left the Arctic? Perhaps this is innacurate or a typo, it seems to contradict Wiki and other claims (which is why I ask):
“Skate surfaced at the North Pole in February 1959.”
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pioneers4.html#James%20F.%20Calvert
Glenn
On the August 1958 voyage Skate goes under the ice pack on 8-10-58, 600 miles from the pole. Upward beam ice detector shows most ice about 7 ft. thick with no pressure ridges deeper than 60 ft. At 70 miles from the pole she surfaces for the first time in an ice lake. Air temp. 32 degrees
On 8-12-58 she surfaces again at 89 degrees 20 min. N. in small ice lake next to a pressure ridge. Air temp. 30 degrees F. ripples on water, no sign of wildlife, stays 19 hrs.
On 8-13-58 she surfaces again looking for IGY Drifting Station Alpha, radios them and they boat around in an ice lake so Skate can follow the noise to the station and surface again. They stay 24 hrs. and leave when the ice begins to shift.
On 8-15-58 they surface again. On 8-17-58 they surface again in a small lake 50 miles from the pole. Again on the 17th they surface 44 nautical miles from the pole in the largest ice lake they found in the arctic and boated around it in their rubber raft.
On 8-18-58 they surface for the 8th time; they surface again at 250 miles from the pole; on 8-20-58 they leave the pack for the 1st time in 11 days. On 8-23-58 they arrive in Bergen Norway.
The 2nd Skate polar cruise was to test the ability to surface in winter. They left New London on March 3, 1959; go under the pack on March 14, and surface through a frozen polynya 400 miles from the pole. Air temp. -20 F. Water temp. 30 degrees F. Surface again 220 miles from pole.
On March 17 they break through a lead on the North Pole; have their service for Wilkins; stay from 4:30 PM-8:30 PM and leave.
They surface again on the 20th and the 22nd always through frozen leads. On March 27 they leave the pack. They had a much more harrowing time on this cruise. From the descriptions I would guess that the picture in the Navsource was not taken on March 17 1959, but may have been on the August 1958 cruise on one of the near pole surfacings.