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.)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 @ur momisugly ~ 86ºN.
Syedoff had been drifting in open water on 12th Dec 1938 and the last report of drifting was @ur momisugly 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.