Well it is that time of year again, the Arctic ice begins to melt, as it does every year, and all sorts of crazy talk starts coming out. This time from Greenpeace. I am encouraged though, as they have come around to the idea that maybe they are doing more harm than good by overselling the alarmism.
NSIDC also has taken a more moderate tone, announcing that there will “likely be no record low ice extent in 2009“. This is a sharp contrast to last year’s ridiculous press statement from NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze about an “ice free north pole”. Now that Greenpeace has come clean on their statement, maybe Dr. Serreze will finally admit his statement was “a mistake”. – Anthony
From Not Evil Just Wrong:
The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”
Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.
Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.
Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.
The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”
Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.
Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.
Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.
“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.”
Sponsored IT training links:
Subscribe for 646-230 training and get 642-426 certified in days! We offer high quality 642-661 dumps with 100% success guarantee.
(Watch the full BBC interview with Leipold here.)
Did he, perhaps, describe how he proposed to lower his standard of living?
Without a scare, any scare, Greenpeace would not exist.
Thanks to Stephen Sackur for is sensible remarks and questions.
Well that’s a cute trick; compare the July average with the annual average, and report that the summer average is lower than the annual average.
Maybe they think people are dumb enough to belief that the polar ice never changes during the year (if everything is working “properly”.
Then there is also a new letter from Dr Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy Meteorologist, hitting the NYT between the eyes with the 2 x 4 approach.
“It’s the Clouds, Stupid!”. Which is pretty much what I have been saying ever since I got myself involved in this question.
You can find Dr Hertzberg’s letter over at Marc Morano’s Climate Depot.
George
“Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world.”
Yes, feeding and clothing people = BAD.
Al Gore flying around in jet = GOOD.
Somebody lock these people up before they do damage.
I expect Greenpeace meant to say that the Arctic Sea would be ice-free by 2030, which might happen if the world kept on warming like the eighties and nineties, but said “Arctic” instead. Very sloppy for an organisation that considers itself to be “scientific”.
Wow ! This guy is bombing the bridges in front of his organization’s Gravy Train. HE is breaking the first and last rules on Environmental Whackoism.
How do they expect to scare people into donating money if they don’t fear monger & use hysterical claims ?
Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world.
It’s ironic that the very people who openly promote “change” are the ones who are least able to cope with it.
I guess they yearn for a world where advancement doesn’t outpace their intellect. And the music never dies. And the climate never changes.
I feel a country music song coming on…..
It’s clear from the press release that this claim of “ice free summers” refers specifically to the arctic sea ice. It’s not clear, in this context that this claim is an exaggeration. Of course it would be an exaggeration in the context of the Greenland ice sheet, but it plainly doesn’t. Sakur is either misinformed, has misread the press release or has performed a bait and switch / built a straw man to skewer Liepold. Liepold even admits ignorance about the particular press release, so his mistake is purely conditional upon the veracity of Sakur’s claims, which are false. You should make a correction to reflect this.
George, try looking at volume not area and this inconsistency is removed.
How nice of them to admit the error.
“Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.”
Never heard this figure [3km] before. Misprint? Error? Correct?
Anybody have a credible figure and source?
Will we now see Scott Pelley at 60 Minutes do a piece about this recantation?
Doubt it.
Greenpiece (as in piece ‘o the money pie) really lost me back in the late 80’s.My wife and I lived in Port Orford,Or. We were walking along Orford Head, which is a bit of land and rock sticking out into the pacific.We were stinng looking at the nice day,rock and ocean-the place is a lot like the coast of Wales and Scotland’s west coast,when we hear
the awful racket- a big,noisy motorsailer chugging into port.I said “Look at that piece
of junk!””It was leaving a good cloud of smoke from the ‘D’-sail exhaust.
It was the Rainbow Warrior, in port for a little protest of mining the ocean.They threw up the Mains, shut the ‘D’ sail down and sailed into port-for the media and their admirers.That coupled with a picture I had of their old PBY Catalina that they had dripping oil on the ramp in Athens Greece,with no drip pans or cat litter,that was the final straw…
He’s referring to to the Greenland ice-cap which is ice and is in the Arctic. So that’s alright then.
I think you’ll find that Leipold, like most of the Greenies, believes that as long as the proles do their bit the elite can carry on pretty much as they like.
I didn’t watch this interview first time round (my blood pressure’s not what it was and I thought Sackur was too much of a devotee) but was delighted when the Beeb repeated it, and pretty pleased with the result.
Last night’s interview with Lovelock didn’t pull any punches either. Maybe someone in the BBC has at last cottoned on to the idea that there is another point of view?
At least Lovelock is credible though at 90 it shouldn’t be too difficult for the Moonbats to convince themselves he’s lost his marbles.
Here’s the link:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8206892.stm
“were sitting looking…” dang it…
Nothing new here! Did you notice how hard he tried to get around the question being asked? Alarmists love to scare, exemplifiy their articles to get the public reading their statements. It was great to see the interviewer pushing! It’s about time and more and more the Wall of BS starts to fall.
Now it’s time to take Climate Change in it’s Scientific view, not Political, and research what really makes Climate Change tick! To realize that Science is constantly in Flux, so to say. Theories constantly change, constantly can be challenged with one little fact and change the whole hypothesis, and so on and so on! That’s Real Science. You have to remember, Climate Change is Abnormal in it’s workings, normal is always short term IMO. Extremes in Weather is the norm and unpreditable at the present beyond 3-5days. Meteorology is always changing their predictions to the latest Climate Change! For this is what the Public demands!
Alarmists need a new agenda, like watching out for large Meteor’s, Asteroids and Comets ready to hit the Earth. Of course, we have to thank the Alarmists on one note, and that is the awareness they brought upon Mother Earth. But only that!!
My eyes, they must need checking. Did I just see a BBC presenter giving a warmist a very hard time live on air? It cannot be true.
Tim S. (10:06:14) :
Somebody lock these people up before they do damage.
Pick up a newspaper Tim. They trumpet the damage daily.
When the day is over there are going to be quite a few people (global warming alarmists) with egg on their face.
It will be interesting to see how they try to wiggle out of it.
Robinson
Yes, it is true and I hope you were sitting down! LOL! 🙂
They are loosing members.
DouglasDC
Didin’t Greenpeace scuttle Rainbow Warrior after the French turned it into a heap of useless metal in NZ?
Claimed it would provide a nice comfy home for the cuddly fish.
Then screamed foul and made great political capital out of Shell trying to do the same thing with Brent Spar?
Eventually they admitted they’d got their facts wrong but said it didn’t matter because they’d been right “in principle”.
“Towards the end of the campaign, in the absence of official figures, Greenpeace released its own estimate of the amount of oil left on the Brent Spar. However, we quickly realised that our improvised measurements had been taken from the wrong part of the Spar, resulting in a significant overestimation of the amount of oil left in the storage tanks. As soon as it became aware of the error, Greenpeace proactively apologised. Although almost unreported at the time, the estimate subsequently became notorious and a persistent media myth was born – that Greenpeace had ‘got it wrong’ over the entire Brent Spar issue.” That quote from their own web site – http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/the-brent-spar
I love that concept of “proactive apology”!
“Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world.”
This is a religious belief or point of view. I have nothing against religious people provided they don’t shove their religion down other people’s throats or use a paternalistic agenda in order to control and/or abuse women (as is done in many parts of the world). If these people have their way then they will deprive all rapidly industrializing developing countries of any future or escape from subsitence living and in many cases abject poverty.
The fact that almost NONE of these Greens remotely practice what they preach (a la Al Gore) is the very height of hypocrisy. To these folks, I say, “Go live like the old order Amish. Practice what you preach and reduce your own industrial footprint before you tell everyone else what to do! It can easily be done – what are you waiting for?”
Big City Lib aka Michael J. Murphy of Toronto has been permanently banned from participation at WUWT.
Despite my treating him fairly here, he has decided to reveal the true childish person he is and start resorting to 4 letter f-word attacks in his own blog because he disagrees with stories posted here. Given his behavior, I don’t see any value to welcoming his participation here any longer. – Anthony
===========================
Well, the claim in the presser is that the arctic ocean might be ice free in summer by 2030, which is not an outlandlish claim at all. He does NOT say that the Greenland ice sheet will melt by 2030–as the interviewer suggests– so if anything the video merely shows that the BBC reporter is semi-literate.
Douglas DC said…”Greenpiece (as in piece ‘o the money pie) really lost me back in the late 80’s.My wife and I lived in Port Orford,Or. We were walking along Orford Head, which is a bit of land and rock sticking out into the pacific…”
I am currently packing up our valley house for a move to Nesika Beach area. My wife is the new City Manager/Admin for Gold Beach. The beach house we found, as no Cell, No Cable, No Internet. It does have a lot of view… I call it the End of the World.
“Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.”
Translation: “It’s OK for us to lie because we are in the right and we need for the rest of you to see it our way for your own good.”
Apparently Leipold is in training for a government position.
The Arctic Sea is ice-free, and pirate-free now. It’s presently several hundred miles off the NW coast of Africa. On the other hand, the Arctic Ocean seems to have trapped a motley crewe in ice.
Good to hear some tough questioning from the press, which I definitely applaud.
However, the headline to this post goes beyond the mark. Greenpeace as an organization hasn’t recanted anything. Also, the admission made by Leipold depends somewhat on the definition of what they meant by “Arctic.” Personally I find it highly unlikely that the Arctic Ocean/Sea will be ice free in the summer by 2030, but that is certainly less of a stretch than including the Greenland ice sheet in one’s definition of the Arctic, which it is not clear they intended to do. Finally, Leipold did not say, as the above story states, that it was a mistake, he said it “may have been a mistake,” based on a press release he didn’t specifically remember. Certainly a welcome admission, but hardly earth shattering.
I think the more salient point here is that they acknowledge, even proclaim, that they are engaging in emotionalizing the issues (surprise, surprise), meaning that they are openly engaged in advocacy, more than an objective presentation of the facts.
“F. Ross (10:32:15) :
How nice of them to admit the error.
“Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.”
Never heard this figure [3km] before. Misprint? Error? Correct?
Anybody have a credible figure and source”
F Ross – Sorry no hard data but I would guess they may have meant 3 metres not 3 kilometers. What is just is bad is the BBC reporter Stephen Sackur mentioning “Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers ” when in a previous post NSIDC reports the Sea Ice Extent for August 17 2009 was “6.26 million square kilometers”. Not only does the hard hitting BBC reporter get both the thickness and, is that mass or is that extent/area, incorrect but the outgoing Green Peace Leader doesn’t even question it. This is such a comedy of errors it makes my sides hurt from laughing.
“Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.”
I thought that CO2 from fossil fuels brought on unprecedented warming…and now I find out that there were warmer periods???
I think it is pretty clear that Greenpeace meant the sea ice in the Arctic, and just flat out didn’t think about Greenland. That’s what he should have said –“oops, we could have worded that better”.
Not that I am prepared to believe that the arctic sea ice will be gone in summer by 2030 either, but that is certainly a more defensible position from a prediction point of view. At least as of July 15, 2009. And certainly a vast improvement in reasonability compared to NSIDC predicting that maybe 2008 would see that!
Two recruiters from greenpeace sometimes hang out in front of the supermarket. I had a chat with one of them a few weeks ago. It’s amazing how far they will go to try to get some money from you, it really feels like harrassment.
I do agree with them in principle that modern society can be very wasteful and irresponsible, and efforts should be made to curb the waste and minimize our impact. Carbon taxes are not definitely not what I had in mind.
What? Is the Arctic not ice free this year? Woops, the climate has thrown them a curve ball and they swung right through it and missed.
I have changed my earlier negative opinion of Greenpeace’s and Leipold’s climate change scare-mongering tactics. We all need to be scared.
After all, the 2009 Arctic ice melt is the third worst since 2007, so it appears that ice in the Arctic Sea is increasing. At this rate, by 2030 the entire Arctic Sea will be frozen solid and water-free, killing many fishes and causing polar bears to proliferate to the point where they starve from lack of baby seal prey.
And I have the most sophisticated computer climate model yet that indicates this. Sorry, but I can’t share the computer model with any of you anti-ice deniers because it is proprietary and I don’t want to be proven wrong.
Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.
“emotionalizing issues”? You meaning telling an untruth? Or in other words lying.
In science, you cannot lie because you think your cause is just. Pachauri of IPCC used the same argument to justify Al Gore’s “exaggerations”.
The next step is to alter your data to give the story you think is true.
In science the data tells you the story and the truth, you do not alter data to tell the story you think is the truth, which is what is happening now with the AGW hypothesis.
Oops should have checked the video. Sakur is referring specificically to the Greenland Ice Sheet and not more general Arctic Ice.
Robinson (10:55:02) :
My eyes, they must need checking. Did I just see a BBC presenter giving a warmist a very hard time live on air? It cannot be true.
Yes it is unusual. But Sackur is a cut above the usual BBC journalist/reporters – he is smart and does some research before interviews. He was not long back from Greenland when he interviewed Leipold. Sackur is the exception though – most of the science / environment reporters are under the spell of the warmists – e.g. the appallingly uncritical coverage of the Catlin expedition by David Shukman – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8047862.stm . Shukman’s worst Catlin report, where he actually filmed someone jumping ito a recently refrozen lead (only a few inches thick) and then commented that that this was evidence of global warming, appears to have been removed from the BBC wesbite. I suspect the higher-ups in Channel 4 News are more circumspect also, I remember watching a C4 news programme in April/May this year, where the presenter (Alex Thomson) seriously suggested that “the Arctic could well be ice free in a year or two”. But this news report did not subsequently appear on the website, presumeably because even a drunk news editor could see it was complete b@lls.
Meanwhile…I wonder if the Arctic icecap melted way long ago into an iceless summer
Study: Global Warming Sparked by Ancient Farming Methods
(CNN) — Ancient man may have started global warming through massive deforestation and burning that could have permanently altered the Earth’s climate, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Virginia and the University of Maryland-Baltimore County.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/18/ancient.global.warming/index.html
Geez! Who pays for these studies?
redneck (11:37:38) :
“F. Ross (10:32:15) :
“Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.”
Never heard this figure [3km] before. Misprint? Error? Correct?
Anybody have a credible figure and source”
“The Greenland ice sheet is a vast body of ice covering 1.71 million km², roughly 80% of the surface of Greenland. ..The thickness is generally more than 2 km (see picture) and over 3 km at its thickest point.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
[url]http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003593/[/url]
I believe the 3km ice thickness for perrineal ice should actually be 3 meters per this report from 2008
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003593/
Per this report from 2008, I believe the 3km thickness should be 3 meters
The ends always justify the means for the environmentalists. If ya ain’t cheating, ya ain’t trying.
Richard said
“redneck (11:37:38) :
“F. Ross (10:32:15) :
“Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.”
Never heard this figure [3km] before. Misprint? Error? Correct?
Anybody have a credible figure and source”
“The Greenland ice sheet is a vast body of ice covering 1.71 million km², roughly 80% of the surface of Greenland. ..The thickness is generally more than 2 km (see picture) and over 3 km at its thickest point.”
Greenland’s ice mass sits above sea level though with a central ice sheet elevation of over 10400′, The Arctic Ice Sheet is paper thin by comparison at only 2 meters for annual ice and 3 meters for perrineal ice
I’m not sure to what extent Greenpeace or the other advocates of AGW (or vegetarianism or animal rights or any of the single interest pressure groups) care all that much about the precise accuracy of their press releases.
I’ve written enough of them in my time to know that the aim is to create an impression. In 99% of cases you can do that without resort to fabrication or outright lying but there are certainly ways of getting Joe Public to believe that ALL the Arctic ice is melting without saying so.
If he spots the error and cares to pick you up on it then you apologise for the bad phraseology or the typist who picked up the wrong draft from the PRO’s office or whatever excuse is the most convincing at the time.
Or you come right out an apologise for getting it wrong (see my link above with the Greenpeace re Brent Spar). How many people with even the slightest of greenish-tinged credentials (which is quite a lot of us these days, one way and another) believe you when you tell them Greenpeace dumped their ship in the ocean and then admitted to getting their facts wrong about Brent Spar? Not one in ten, I’ll bet you.
From the previous post.
“Rescue Me! Another polar expedition trapped in ice”
I believe most have lost the ability to discern reality
from their own lies.
Greenpeace training video.
Repeat after me: The ice is melting, the ice is……
F. Ross (10:32:15) :
How nice of them to admit the error.
“Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.”
Never heard this figure [3km] before. Misprint? Error? Correct?
Anybody have a credible figure and source?
I believe the figure is correct, it was referring to the thickness of the Greenland ice cap.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/EmmanuelleStJean.shtml
“”” Glug (10:32:09) :
George, try looking at volume not area and this inconsistency is removed. “””
You are probably correct Glug; unfortunately I haven’t any idea about what; such as what inconsistency ?
When you have a pretty much single valued function like the ice graph Anthony puts over on the left, and the summer melt back in May,June, July leads to the minimums of Sept; you don’t expect it to be the same as the annual average. Likewise I would expect to find the January maximum to always be above the annual average.
Remember half of all the people on earth are of below average intelligence; well below median intelligence anyway, and for such a population, I would expect mean and median to be pretty much the same thing.
“”” Sam the Skeptic (11:12:18) :
DouglasDC
Didin’t Greenpeace scuttle Rainbow Warrior after the French turned it into a heap of useless metal in NZ? “””
And considering just how many young Kiwi men gave their lives trying to save those Frenchies from their own self made mess (twice); and then they go and attack up in a cowardly unprovoked attack.
So next time you Frenchies get your panties in a bunch; fix it yourselves, and don’t ask us for any help.
George; lest we forget.
Most AGW claims are emotionalizing rather than science, like the 25 m rise in sea level Hansen predicts by 2100.
From what I gleaned from the clip, Mr. Sackur was referring to the Greenland ice-cap, not the Arctic Basin sea ice. On sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, particularly the Arctic Basin, there is little/no chance that it will disappear by 2030. According to the National snow and ice data centre (check this blog), the retreat is slowing and still at 2.4 million sq’ miles – that’s a lot of ice!!
I regularly watch Mr. Sackur, he is a sapient, investigative journalist not given to suffering fools lightly. He is a cut above the ‘camera cutie’ normally seen news-reading, they ‘buy’ the AGW guff hook line and sinker, Sackur, he possesses a certain gravitas.
However, he is not a climatologist/meteorologist/geographer/geologist etc and I think he slightly had his wires crossed, one guy talking about sea ice and the other referring to ice-cap. Mr. Sackur made a recent programme on/for the beeb about Greenland, which I watched ( by the by, I do not work for or even like the beeb!), here;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8167209.stm
Green peace? I used to hold a certain sympathy for their whale conservation stuff, then they got politics, very much like the WWF, good once, then political shenanigans abounded – another waste of time, all about money and power not truth or integrity.
So maybe Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information has his superiors wishing he’d ‘calibrated words differently’.
This is the same Greenpeace that spent 20 years trying to get chlorine banned from drinking water (and everywhere else)(how you can ban a chemical element is beyond insanity).
From John Brignell:
“As I wrote in a book called Sorry, Wrong Number! in 2000, chlorine is essential to life on earth, not only in the form of its sodium salt, but as a constituent of more than more than 1500 vital compounds in plants and animals, including our digestive juices. The chlorination of drinking water has saved more human lives than any other hygienic measure.
However in 1991, Greenpeace activist Christine Houghton said: “Since its creation, chlorine has been a chemical catastrophe. It is either chlorine or us.” Even by Greenpeace standards this was a pretty remarkable piece of ignorant, hysterical nonsense. When chlorination was stopped in Peru in 1991 as a result of pressure from the EPA and Greenpeace, an epidemic broke out that spread through Latin America. Some 800,000 people became ill with cholera and 6,000 people died. Millions of people are still dying all over the world because of dirty water.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/24/numberwatch_chlorine/
I wonder if they apologised for that lot?
Maybe ‘Browndeath’ would be a more accurate name than ‘Greenpeace.’
John W. (09:54:27) :
“Did he, perhaps, describe how he proposed to lower his standard of living?”
It appears that he is saving a little money, not to mention the trip to the mall, by cutting his own hair.
@ Richard 11:55
“The next step is to alter your data…”. Surely not!! Al and his mates would never do such a thing. What?? We can earn how much brokering Carbon Offsets?
Bring on the hockey sticks!
“”” Sam the Skeptic (11:12:18) :
DouglasDC
Didin’t Greenpeace scuttle Rainbow Warrior after the French turned it into a heap of useless metal in NZ? “””
This was the replacement…
Love it about the moron getting trapped in the ice. But as a Canadian, I am “irritated” at my tax dollars being consumed by a Canadian ice breaker having to go and rescue this ship of fools. Let the polar bears have them, after all, they are supposedly starving due to the lack of ice (which apparently has ensnared another gang of idiots).
Does anybody have a map of what Greenland looks like without any ice on it. I seem to recall having read that it is really a group of islands, and most of that ice is not sitting on any land that is above sea level (even without the sea level rise that could result from melting it all.
But I could be wrong; I was wrong once; but I can’t recall what that was all about.
May I remind you all that the color of bovine semi-solid body waste is, after all, GREEN.
IIRC, Greenland was one piece, but the accumulated weight of the ice has compressed it so much that it would be a bunch of islands if the ice vanished (even without the accompanying SL rise).
“George E. Smith (16:09:23) :
Does anybody have a map of what Greenland looks like without any ice on it. I seem to recall having read that it is really a group of islands, and most of that ice is not sitting on any land that is above sea level (even without the sea level rise that could result from melting it all.
But I could be wrong; I was wrong once; but I can’t recall what that was all about.”
I believe that Greenland is an Island but that the central region is below sea level, largely due to compression from the ice mass sitting atop its land. If the Ice sheet were to completely melt off, There would be some rebound to the land mass beneath, though it would likely become a large freshwater lake surrounded by mountains. Like an Atoll but with a fresh water centeral region
Has anyone read the earlier comments? You know, the ones about mixing up the Arctic with Greenland? Might be worth doing before spouting more nonsense…
But maybe the land would pop back up!
/Mr Lynn
Stephen Sackur’s mistake is understandable. While the “ice-free by 2030” remark apparently refers only to the the sea ice, most of the press release is about melting glaciers on Greenland. It also refers to the northern “ice cap” which could easily be interpreted as including Greenland. It’s possible some readers of the press release misconstrued it as predicting early Greenland melting, so Mr. Sackur has done them a service.
It is interesting that Greenpeace is funded by Standard Oil money and so is Sierra Club and also the group much in the news these days ACORN. Don’t you love hypocrites?
Rockefeller Brothers Foundation
Greenpeace $1,080,000.00 1997 – 2005
Sierra Club $710,000.00 1995 – 2001
ACORN $10,000.00 2002 – 2002
Rockefeller Family Fund
Greenpeace $115,000.00 2002 – 2005
Sierra Club $105,000.00 1996 – 2002
ACORN $25,000.00 1998 – 1998
Rockefeller Foundation
Greenpeace $20,285.00 1996 – 2001
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
Sierra Club $38,250.00 1997 – 2000
SOURCE is http://www.activistcash.com/index_foundations.cfm?alpha=R
Thomas J. Arnold. (14:21:02) : “Green peace? I used to hold a certain sympathy for their whale conservation stuff,…” I watched “Whale Wars”, or whatever it’s called, on A&E, I believe. I found myself rooting for the whalers [“ram those scruffy hippies”]. I didn’t like myself for that, so I stopped watching [whoever the “father figure” on that program is, he is insufferable].
So the Greenpeace Misanthropes admit that they lie and exaggerate….. Not that it is much of a revelation to most of us.
Their figures on human sustainability are about as reliable as their AGW figures….. You cannot believe a word these people say. If their mouths are moving….. They are lying.
“Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world.”
Who the H-E-double-toothpicks does he think funds Greenpeace!?! And where does that money ultimately come from? (Hint: any guess besides mining, manufacturing, or agriculture is wrong.)
redneck (11:37:38) :
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:04:41) :
Richard (12:19:56) :
Bryan (12:35:22) :
Thanks to all who responded to my question.
If they were indeed referring to the Greenland ice sheet, then the 3km becomes more believable. And if referring to arctic sea ice, then 3meters sounds much closer.
Mr Lynn (17:12:51) :
evanmjones (16:21:48) :
IIRC, Greenland was one piece, but the accumulated weight of the ice has compressed it so much that it would be a bunch of islands if the ice vanished (even without the accompanying SL rise).
“But maybe the land would pop back up!”
It would. For example, Scotland and Norway are still ‘rebounding’ from the last ice age.
Greenpuss
In recent days I’ve begun to fear that climate alarmist propaganda and the attendant distortion of public discourse is finally succeeding in driving me completely around the bend. I have in the last month or two found myself feeling heartened by reports of colder summers, of expanding glaciers, of polar ice possibly being resurgent, and other phenomena whose only positive grace is that they offer a counter to the continuing hysteria of the climate Cassandras and the collectivist politicians who are exploiting them to inflict their pernicious philosophy on the world. This is as close to the boundary of insanity as I really want to venture. In any truly sane and reasonable world reports or predictions of declines in the global supply of ice would be greeted with the same emotional response as reports of declines in the populations of rats, cockroaches, and mosquitoes, yet, due to the looming disaster of ascendant collectivism, I find myself in the position of wanting to root for the ice. The alarmist’s success at inverting human thought has been so nearly complete that it is hard at times to recall what it meant to live in a more rational world. Warmth which has been sought, embraced, and celebrated since the dawn of humanity has been so denigrated that daring to rise to its’ defense merits your characterization as a person of such Hitlerian evil that you deserve to be shunned, jailed, or even killed. Ice, which has been as much the enemy of humanity as warmth has been its’ friend, is now a commodity whose loss we must dread. Truly we are approaching a state of complete cultural insanity.
Gail Combs (17:27:43) :
“It is interesting that Greenpeace is funded by Standard Oil money and so is Sierra Club and also the group much in the news these days ACORN. Don’t you love hypocrites?
Rockefeller Brothers Foundation
Greenpeace $1,080,000.00 1997 – 2005
Sierra Club $710,000.00 1995 – 2001
ACORN $10,000.00 2002 – 2002”
&etc. This is an example of ‘Affluenza’ the onset of guilt over what the or more likely
the ancestors did.-rather than taking that money and giving it to research to say, cure cancer or a limitless power source-something useful…
Yep. The inmates are running the asylum. We are in grave danger when such fits of irrationality take over those in charge of governments. Though the political and academic elites who are promulgating the ‘climate change’ ideology are still perfectly capable of seeing their own short-term interests, just as the apparatchiks in Stalin’s Soviet Union did. You bow and scrape and repeat he correct catechisms, and you are rewarded by progressing up the hierarchy. Remember Lysenkoism in science, ‘socialist realism’ in the arts. The new mantras are ‘world governance’ in the service of ‘the planet’.
/Mr Lynn
Erratum: That’s “THE correct catechisms.” But I did fix Dave’s possessives. /Mr L
Dave Wendt (19:16:41) :
I second that emotion
Dave Wendt (19:16:41)
Well said Dave.
What a creationist-worthy quote mine! The full text of that section of the press release is:
“Ice free Arctic
Bad news is coming from other sources as well. A recent NASA study has shown that the ice cap is not only getting smaller, it’s getting thinner and younger. Sea ice has dramatically thinned between 2004 and 2008. Old ice (over 2 years old) takes longer to melt, and is also much harder to replace. As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.
They say you can’t be too thin or too young, but this unfortunately doesn’t apply to the Arctic sea ice. Polar bears are the first to suffer from it, but many other species could be affected as well.”
Nowhere in that section was Greenland even mentioned.
Emotionalising indeed, but in this case from the interviewer.
It’s not just Greenpeace making outrageous, patently false claims.
NASA on their website for educating the public on climate change tells us that the Arctic Sea Ice has decreased 38% per decade since 1979.
http://climate.nasa.gov/ in the Vital Signs of the Planet bar.
ginckgo (20:21:05) :
“…Polar bears are the first to suffer from it…”
Why, because they have been banned from adaptation?
Dave Wendt (19:16:41) :
Good point Dave. OT, but I’d add that one way communism use to destroy and takeover the society is to turn the most basic values of humanity upside down. Dave’s “warmth is bad; ice is good” is a good example. Another obvious one is the myth of overpopulation. Call me ultraconservative or whatever you see fit, but I believe human life is a blessing, and its improvement, in terms of number, longevity and quality, should be celebrated. Yes there are increasing amount of problems that we can barely keep up, let alone deal with; but asking people not to procreate as a “solution” is egregious. It’s like saying the way to cure a headache is to chop one’s head off.
here is the same interviewer playing the warmers side interviewing Vaclav Klaus.
This clip is published by Not Evil Just Wrong. I have no interrests in this but think it’s a good idea to support their effort to sell a DVDs, which should be delivered just before the 18 October. One can create an advertisment for it (be affiliate). The cinema networks, who loves Michael Moore, doesn’t seem to support anti-nonrational-environmentalists. 🙁
I think NEJW have covered part of the costs by donations, but need to sell lots of copies. To focus on the date 18 october I think is a good idea. One get a poster and “movie stuffs” when bying the DVD ($29). This is also a date when a discussion of the movie (an anti-nonrational-environmentalist discussion??) can take place. Why not be a part of it?
“Did I just see a BBC presenter giving a warmist a very hard time live on air? It cannot be true.”
The BBC is probably trying to patch up its reputation for balance by kicking Greenpeace when it’s down (on this issue, now that the US ice agency has stated the minimum ice extent this year won’t set a record. There was a similar distancing maneuver two or three months ago by a woman associated with the MET or BBC, stating that alarmism should be eschewed.
“I believe the 3km ice thickness for perrineal ice should actually be 3 meters per this report from 2008.”
“perrineal”: Not the “mot juste”!
When the BBC accuses you of of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism”, you know you’ve overstepped the line.
Emotionalizing it, because it creates a moral superior proposition (save it!) that in return gives a shot of endorphines to the ones that stated it and the ones that concur with it. Should this be allowed? Are we allowed to drug (endorphins not much different than cocaine) someone to make in concur with us? Aren’t there laws the prohibit it?
In fact greenpeace and others have made a very good living by propagating the ‘tipping point’ global disaster scenarios to a trusting public.
Peddling alarmism and threats of imminent global disaster through a very successful media campaign has attracted many converts, of course faced with the facts they might well have to admit the truth when confronted but the fact is they almost certainly knew full well that their claims were highly exaggerated but they chose to persue this course soley because of its distinct tactical advantages.
As we all know, there is a world of difference between a wrongdoer being sorry for being caught out and being sorry for the actual wrongdoing.
Dave Wendt (19:16:41) :
Excellent, insightful post. Thank you.
Note though that the claims of the alarmists are that they want things to go back to ‘normal’ or some ‘pristine’ time before the evil technologies of man despoiled the planet. Normal can then be defined any way you want; the goal posts keep moving so one can keep the populace dancing towards your chosen goal.
Also, life is typically nasty, brutish, and short for the poverty-stricken. The increase in wealth, and its attendant increase in longevity and quality of life, for vast numbers of the planet’s citizens can be attributed to technology. What’s the (insane) solution? Take the wealth and give it to those in poverty. What’s the sane solution? Take the technology and give it to those in poverty.
I don’t want winters like we had back in the 70’s when things were ‘normal.’ Count me firmly in the camp for warming. (Canada could use a good real estate boom, IMO.) I’d rather deal with the consequences of warming than the alternative.
AnonyMoose (11 28 48);
I stand corrected!
Re. Bigcitylib at 11:17. On the contrary, your post merely proves that you are as mendacious as they are, and the reporter has indeed done his homework. Even a cursory look at Greenpeace’s website reveals all kinds of absurd claims about the Greenland ice sheet.
Now go away until you can honestly answer the question, “what will the effect on sea level with the melting of Arctic Ocean floating ice?’
For those who might have had difficulty with Dr. Leipold’s accent, allow me to translate.
“Emotionalizing” means lying through your teeth.
Better?
http://www.livescience.com/environment/061213_under_ice.html
Here is an interesting article on the sub_glacial topography of Greenland
“”” evanmjones (16:21:48) :
IIRC, Greenland was one piece, but the accumulated weight of the ice has compressed it so much that it would be a bunch of islands if the ice vanished (even without the accompanying SL rise). “””
Well actually the whole planet is just one piece, and everything is floating on everything else.
Supposedly, North America was once covered with a gigantic mountain range that totally dwarfed in size and height the Himalayan region; but it all got eroded away into sand and dust. And when that happened, there wasn’t any “rebound”; things just releveleed graviatationally, as they have done for eons.
So Greenland is a group of islands after all; but may not be in the future with all the ice gone, and then the rock relevelling.
In any case; isn’t most rock much denser than ice; so why would the ice compress the land more than just more land would. Seems silly to me.
George
I’m sorry but until I see the effects ‘Emotionalized’ has on a CO2 graph I’m not having any of it.
I just read this and wrote an ugly vent which the world may never see. Damn these people piss me off. There are only eleven news articles on it under a google search.
Thanks again WUWT.
Hot off the Yahoo press: article this afternoon on the record warmth of our oceans. Water near arctic “10 degrees above normal”.
In hot water:WASHINGTON – Steve Kramer spent an hour and a half swimming in the ocean Sunday — in Maine. The water temperature was 72 degrees — more like Ocean City, Md., this time of year. And Ocean City’s water temp hit 88 degrees this week, toasty even by Miami Beach standards.
Kramer, 26, who lives in the seaside town of Scarborough, said it was the first time he’s ever swam so long in Maine’s coastal waters. “Usually, you’re in five minutes and you’re out,” he said.
It’s not just the ocean off the Northeast coast that is super-warm this summer. July was the hottest the world’s oceans have been in almost 130 years of record-keeping.
The average water temperature worldwide was 62.6 degrees, according to the National Climatic Data Center, the branch of the U.S. government that keeps world weather records. June was only slightly cooler, while August could set another record, scientists say. The previous record was set in July 1998 during a powerful El Nino weather pattern.
Meteorologists said there’s a combination of forces at work: A natural El Nino system just getting started on top of worsening man-made global warming, and a dash of random weather variations. The resulting ocean heat is already harming threatened coral reefs. It could also hasten the melting of Arctic sea ice and help hurricanes strengthen.
The Gulf of Mexico, where warm water fuels hurricanes, has temperatures dancing around 90. Most of the water in the Northern Hemisphere has been considerably warmer than normal. The Mediterranean is about three degrees warmer than normal. Higher temperatures rule in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
The heat is most noticeable near the Arctic, where water temperatures are as much as 10 degrees above average. The tongues of warm water could help melt sea ice from below and even cause thawing of ice sheets on Greenland, said Waleed Abdalati, director of the Earth Science and Observation Center at the University of Colorado.
Breaking heat records in water is more ominous as a sign of global warming than breaking temperature marks on land, because water takes longer to heat up and does not cool off as easily as land.
“This warm water we’re seeing doesn’t just disappear next year; it’ll be around for a long time,” said climate scientist Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in British Columbia. It takes five times more energy to warm water than land.
The warmer water “affects weather on the land,” Weaver said. “This is another yet really important indicator of the change that’s occurring.”
Georgia Institute of Technology atmospheric science professor Judith Curry said water is warming in more places than usual, something that has not been seen in more than 50 years.
Add to that an unusual weather pattern this summer where the warmest temperatures seem to be just over oceans, while slightly cooler air is concentrated over land, said Deke Arndt, head of climate monitoring at the climate data center.
The pattern is so unusual that he suggested meteorologists may want to study that pattern to see what’s behind it.
The effects of that warm water are already being seen in coral reefs, said C. Mark Eakin, coordinator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s coral reef watch. Long-term excessive heat bleaches colorful coral reefs white and sometimes kills them.
Bleaching has started to crop up in the Florida Keys, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands — much earlier than usual. Typically, bleaching occurs after weeks or months of prolonged high water temperatures. That usually means September or October in the Caribbean, said Eakin. He found bleaching in Guam Wednesday. It’s too early to know if the coral will recover or die. Experts are “bracing for another bad year,” he said.
The problems caused by the El Nino pattern are likely to get worse, the scientists say.
An El Nino occurs when part of the central Pacific warms up, which in turn changes weather patterns worldwide for many months. El Nino and its cooling flip side, La Nina, happen every few years.
During an El Nino, temperatures on water and land tend to rise in many places, leading to an increase in the overall global average temperature. An El Nino has other effects, too, including dampening Atlantic hurricane formation and increasing rainfall and mudslides in Southern California.
Warm water is a required fuel for hurricanes. What’s happening in the oceans “will add extra juice to the hurricanes,” Curry said.
Hurricane activity has been quiet for much of the summer, but that may change soon, she said. Hurricane Bill quickly became a major storm and the National Hurricane Center warned that warm waters are along the path of the hurricane for the next few days.
Hurricanes need specific air conditions, so warmer water alone does not necessarily mean more or bigger storms, said James Franklin, chief hurricane specialist at the National Hurricane Center in Miami.
___
On the Net:
National Climatic Data Center on July 2009: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?reportglobal&year2009&month7
NOAA’s coastal water temperature guide: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/all.html
World sets ocean temperature record
RE George E. Smith (11:00:28) :
Rebound does occur after land mass, once covered by glacial ice sheets, is finally uncovered. This occured over the northern portions of the USA and caused the formation of the Great Lakes region (the glaciation gouged out the area and left a large depression that filled with the melt off while rebounding land mass formed the current shape). The area is still rebounding and is likely to be lake free in the next 100,000 years. (if current trends continue). Many of the flooding scenereos proposed by global ice melt includes the steady rebound of land mass that is currently covered by ice. I believe that this is where the figure of 200 – 450 feet of possible sea level rise comes from.
It is the weight of the ice that compresses the land and its removal that allows for the rebounding
Douglas DC (19:24:07) :
Sorry but that’s BS (& I don’t mean Bad Science.)
The real reason is…
There’s MONEY in that alarmism and they stand to make a bunch of it!
DaveE.
H.R. (03:52:32) :
Dave Wendt (19:16:41) :
Like the normal here…
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40D10FF355B177A93C3AB1789D85F4D8385F9
Used to be free to view but not any more.
Syedoff got frozen in about 18th Dec 1938 and freed again in Feb 1939 @ ~ 86ºN.
Syedoff had been drifting in open water on 12th Dec 1938 and the last report of drifting was @ 85ºN on the 18th dec.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/12/today-in-climate-history-dec-12th-1938-getting-warmer/
Some declared that this was a scam, but I found the link…
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40D14F63C5F1B7A93C0A81789D95F4C8385F9&scp=1&sq=1938%20arctic%20syedoff&st=cse
which used to point to the full story, free to access.
Hope that points to a ‘normal’ you like 😉
DaveE.
@DaveE (16:53:26) :
“[…] Hope that points to a ‘normal’ you like ;-)”
Thanks for the links, DaveE.
I’m thinking normal is glaciation extending down past Indianapolis. That’s the condition for 90+% of the time. These little 10k-year bursts of interglacial warmth are to be savored before things go back to ‘normal’.
People have a tendency to think that “right now” is the way things always have been and always should be. Where is their sense of history?
This situation is exactly why we made Not Evil Just Wrong. This kind of alarmist tendency is…well alarming. We need to get to make this information common knowledge. Please check out Not Evil Just Wrong and consider hosting a party.
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/
Magnus thanks for the support. This situation is exactly why we made Not Evil Just Wrong. This kind of alarmist tendency is…well alarming. We need to get to make this information common knowledge. Please check out Not Evil Just Wrong and consider hosting a party.
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/
Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world.[…] “We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.”
What’s truly scary is this mindset. It is economic growth that lets us do MORE with LESS having LOWER impact on the planet.
My laptop uses a few 10s of watts, while my old computer used 100s and the equivalent machine in the early ’80s used a 750 kVA power feed (I know, I managed the site…). My present car gets 30 mpg. The one I drove in 1972 got 16 mpg, made a lot more smog, and lasted 1/3 the miles (meaning more cycles of iron refining…) for a roughly the same weight car. Oh, and tires then lasted about 15,000 miles; not the 60,000 miles I get now. My home is now insulated much better and my light bulbs are about 1/10th the power consumption. We can produce several times over the quantity of food per acre and need I mention that the number of trees that would need to be killed to support the library (for everyone with internet access) that you can get for free off the internet is more than on the whole planet.
THE way to “save the planet” is via economic advancement.
The whole idea of economic growth and technical advancement is to create more with less, a whole lot less.
Rather than chop down ancient trees for solid wood furniture, we now use “veneer” that puts a thin layer over “whatever”. Further, many times that veneer is now a synthetic plastic anyway. We make clothes from a variety of synthetic materials (needing much less land for cotton, leather and wool production). And technology now makes it cheaper to build desalinizing plants than to dam up a valley and pipe the water to the cities. (In other words, today we would not destroy Hetch Hetchy valley to give water to San Francisco because it would be more expensive than a technological alternative.)
The list goes on quite long…
So the bottom line is that a rich and prosperous people can afford to set aside forests, rivers, and chunks of the ocean for preservation. A stagnant and poor people must kill and damage the world, or die, and generally chooses not to die…
This isn’t just speculation. We had fewer people in the U.S.A. in 1930 than now. We have much more production now, and set aside more land each year for preservation (and have cleaner air and water too) than ever before.
Yes, we went though a peak of environmental degradation on our way to get here; but that is an argument for FASTER growth, not slower. The quicker you get through that phase, the better for the planet. (You can see this happening now in China. Rapid increase in consumption, leading to increased degradation but with higher prosperity, leading to greater focus on cleaning up the environment and preservation. Just as happened in Japan post WWII).
The example from the other side is Madegascar, where economic stagnation has lead to rapid environmental destruction. Poor uneducated people have very high birth rates. Rich and educated people drop below replacement rate (which is why the entire western world including Japan are now shrinking in population net of immigration). In Madegascar they cut the forest down for fuel and their soil is washing out to sea as a result. Haite is another example. The pattern is always the same: Rapid economic growth to modernity leads to environmental preservation; economic stagnation leads to destruction.
To save the planet, embrace economic growth. To kill it, embrace economic stagnation. It really is that simple.
Not Evil Just Wrong (20:19:17) :
Good work you guys! You’ve got my support. If I get the chance, I’ll hold a paty. I might be on an oil rig at the time,…
If I get the chance, as well as holding a paty, I’ll see if I can also hold a party!
Jeremy (11:15:47) : This is a religious belief or point of view.
I agree, but it is one based on faulty “facts” and broken beliefs about economics. To put that on others is sinful.
If these people have their way then they will deprive all rapidly industrializing developing countries of any future or escape from subsitence living and in many cases abject poverty.
YES! AND condemn the environment of those subsistence farmers and wood gatherers to destruction.
The fact that almost NONE of these Greens remotely practice what they preach (a la Al Gore) is the very height of hypocrisy.
It does “frost my shorts” that they talk a good game, but would throw rocks at me, and I grow my own vegetable rather than have a lawn out back, drive a car on renewable fuels, and have not “consumed” a new car in 20+ years (reduce, reuse, recycle – I’m going to drive my 1980 car until I can drive no more: “reuse”…).
To these folks, I say, “Go live like the old order Amish. Practice what you preach and reduce your own industrial footprint before you tell everyone else what to do! It can easily be done – what are you waiting for?”
Your suggestion and direction are sound, but …
As someone only 2 generations away from “Old Order Amish” roots (Grandad and Grandma on Dads side) One Small Problem… The ‘fuel efficiency’ of a draft horse is not very high. It takes rather one heck of a lot of acres to feed a set of draft animals. It is more efficient to use oil (or even to grow plant oils and use a Diesel) than to feed a horse. If you think the environmental footprint of a person is large, look at that of a horse team! Grampa was a working Smith and it takes a heck of a lot of wood to make a horse shoe, and fit it. And wood means land. Land that is no longer wild and preserved.
Similarly, a wood stove takes a lot of wood (be it to cook or to heat the home). It is kinder to the earth to use natural gas or at least to ferment cow poo and use that gas and chop down a lot fewer trees. These things are generally not allowed by Amish traditions.
An electric light bulb takes far less kerosene to power than an equivalent light output kerosene lamp. Making wool pants consumes more land (via sheep grazing) than a polyester suit. Etc. And these things are very much not allowed traditionally. (If it’s not in the Bible, it is not allowed. If it is “prideful” it is not allowed. Buttons are prideful. Colored paint and bright clothes are prideful. A washing machine means sloth and potentially pridefulness too, even though it uses less water and soap than hand washing; and a lot less labor. )
So, it is an unfortunate truth that to “live like an Old Order Amish” is not to be kinder to the earth. It looks more quaint, but the impact on the earth is greater. (If you doubt that, spend a summer shoveling horse manure, pig poo, and growing hay for feed… then washing your clothes by hand with wood heated water.)
And that shines a light on the basic fallacy of the “greens” desire to avoid technological advance “to save the planet”. It doesn’t.
It’s a self indulgence that consumes more resources, not less. (Yes I appreciate the irony of that… the Amish, to be frugal and avoid self indulgence and pridefulness being self indulgent and having excess consumption … life has it’s ironies.)
Sidebar: Amish Traditions are changing a bit in some places. If there is no alternative, an Amish can work with modern machinery to make a living. (i.e. if you can’t own your own farm, you can make cheese in a factory for wages and use electric equipment at work.) Some Amish now use some motorized vehicles or equipment, especially if there is no “reasonable” alternative (i.e. you don’t have pasture for a horse in your apartment).
Buttons were “prideful” due to their cost 100 years ago. They were a status symbol then. Now the removal of buttons and replacement with hand made “frogs” could be seen as prideful, since buttons are now dirt cheap. You see where this is going… So there are Old Order Amish and “not so much” Amish… (I’ve seen a horse drawn wagon with a gasoline driven motor running equipment on the wagon! IIRC it was a hay bailer of some kind); and folks like me. Raised with a tradition of frugal non-pridefulness, of being “simple”, but willing to use equipment as appropriate as long as I’m not dependent upon it nor prideful about it. I still have kerosene lamps, but for day to day use, it’s the electric bulb that’s the non-prideful, and a frugal alternative. Though I’ve lost touch with most of the religious traditions and much of the language, some of the value structure persists.
And oddly, it’s that value structure that causes me to dislike waste and to dislike the self indulgence of the present “green” movement, and their wasteful push for policy that would lead to more environmental damage (and their pridefulness in their actions, especially when so wrong headed); it’s those old Amish roots that causes the rejection of the present “green” advocacy groups. Did I mention that the world is an Ironic place some times 😉
Mike Strong (12:11:47) :
Geez! Who pays for these studies?
You do.
As do the rest of us.
No smiley.
Skeptic (20:27:02) :
It’s not just Greenpeace making outrageous, patently false claims.
NASA on their website for educating the public on climate change tells us that the Arctic Sea Ice has decreased 38% per decade since 1979.
89 .38
99 .38
09 .38
So we have lost 114% of Arctic Sea Ice? Wow! How much is left to lose!?
%100 – %38 = %62
%62 – %38 = %38.4
%38.4 – %38 = %23.8 remaining over original 100% figure
Bryan — even that result of 23.8% remaining is wrong.
The reduction in Sea Ice Extent varies greatly depending upon which month one is tracking. For some months it is 2 to 3% per decade. The highest decline rate is for the Sea Ice Minimum in September. That is -11.7%.
See http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives/image_select.html for a very easy to use tool that lets one look at past records. In particular, you can get the trend in Sea Ice Extent for each month.
Jun -3.3% per decade
For July it is -6.1% per decade.
Aug -8.7%
Sept is the highest at -11.1% per decade
Oct -5.4% per decade
Nov -4.5% per decade
December through April it is in the -2 to -4 % per decade range.
The latest sea ice extent measurement, July 2009 was 11.5 million sq km.
The July 1979 number was 10.5 million sq km. Not a big difference, but it has increased in the last 30 years, not decreased.
One can find a big decrease in the Sept Arctic Sea Ice Extent.
Sept 1979 = 7.2 million sq km.
Sept 2008 = 4.7 million sq km —- a record low. This year doesn’t look to be on track to break it.
That biggest decrease is a 35% decrease over 29 years. Still no way to get a 38% decrease per decade out of it.
Bogus bogus data at climate.nasa.gov. Click on the various other key indicators and you will see many more errors. They have started to clean up their act and changed the Sea Level graph today.
Look at the Arctic Sea Ice extent numbers on http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm
NASA says 5.85 million sq Km Arctic Sea Ice Extent for March 2009. The National Snow and Ice Data Center that NASA lists as the source says March 2009 extent was 15.2 million sq km.
This is the material our educators use to discuss global warming with their students.
In fact ,the summer arctic ice will,probably, disappear until 2030
Take the September arctic ice extent(1979-2008)
Do a 2nd degree interpolation
The zero ice is on year 2027
The relevance of the second degree term is confirmed by the fact that the MINIMUM SQUARE SUM is divided by 3!!! when we shift from 1st to 2nd degree of interpolation
Of course I’m aware that the reality is much more complex , but…let stop killing the messenger who brings the bad news.
@ E.M. Smith.
In 1960, per capita rate of energy consumption in U.S. was 8400 watts, population was 179,000,000 for a total primary energy “consumption” of 45.09 “quads” (quadrillion b.t.u.). In 2006, a population of 298,000,000 consumed energy at a rate of 11,250 watts per capita for a total primary energy consumption of 100 quads. So please explain again how advancing technology reduces impact?
Re “the summer arctic ice will probably disappear until 2030”
I made the assumption that behind the arctic ice extent(1979-2008)there is a second degree polynomial.
The data are the classic NSIDC September arctic sea ice extent
I test this with Student distribution;the test parameter is:
X=sqrt((1-s2/s1)(n-2))>1.7(for Student significance 95%)
Where: s1= less square sum ,interpolation 1st degree=6.50e4(Km^4)
s2=similar ,interpolation 2nd degree=4.46e4(Km^4)
n=30year
I obtained x=3.0.corresponding with a significance of 99.998%
The best polynomial is:
S(t)=-0.3894*t^2+ 4.272*t+728.9 (t=year-1978))
S(t)=0 gives t=49=year2027.
for this year the formula gives
S=487 e4 Km2 which is a pretty good prognostic
So:
1.the thawing of the arctic ice is accelerating(because there is a significant negative second degree term).
2.the most probable complete thawing year is 2027.
“”” alexandriu doru (08:06:52) :
Re “the summer arctic ice will probably disappear until 2030″
I made the assumption that behind the arctic ice extent(1979-2008)there is a second degree polynomial. “””
So just what is the Physics behind your second degree polynomial; the one you “ass-umed”.
Fitting polynomials to data can be a dangerous proposition when there is no physical basis for the relationship; and making predictions from such polynimials can be quite fatal.
A good example would be the two dimensional Lissajous figures that are the solutions to the parametric equations;- x = Acos (a) , y = Bcos(n.a)
Such functions are bound between the limits of +/-A, +/-B
Yet within those limits, they can be exactly represented by the Tchebychev Polynomials y = Tn(x) which are completely unbounded functions, so if you used the polynomial to compute a value outside the data range, the result would be totally fictitious.
In the case of most climate models; their predictive prowess drops to zero following the entry of the most recently obtained real data value.
So once again; what is the physics of your second degree polynomial ?