This WUWT article from 2008 was on Fox News tonight

From WUWT on March 16, 2008, we found this article and it is now just getting national news exposure. I’m bringing it forward again since there has been a lot of activity in search engine traffic that has found its way here tonight.

Sean Hannity read from it during his Fox News show.

Read the original article here:

November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Dev

Anthony, mods:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8443687.stm
Andrew Neil relentlessly grills John Hirsh, head of the Met Office during a BBC program for blowing the weather predictions, and why he received a performance bonus for such bad forecasting.
Destined to become a classic.

photon without a Higgs

Should be a spike in WUWT views today.
I still want to see 250,000,000 by January 1, 2011.

wayne

Look what this Guardian article claims true science is:
Britain’s cold snap does not prove climate science wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/06/cold-snap-climate-sceptics
“The ability to distinguish trends from complex random events is one of the traits that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is also the basis of all science; detecting patterns, distinguishing between signal and noise, and the means by which the laws of physics, chemistry and biology are determined.”
Emphasis is mine.
Doesn’t even remotely sound like the definition of science I learned years ago!! What happened to the scientific method??

John J.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Hannity only steals from the best!

kadaka

@ wayne (23:34:03) :
Thus we remain in awe that science ever saw progress before the invention of the spreadsheet.

Peter Pond

Dev (23:21:39)
I got the impression that Andrew Neil knew more about the Met Office’s medium/long term forecasting record than did the Met’s performance bonussed head, John Hirst, who seemed to be full of bluster and wanted only to focus on the Met’s short-term forecasting effort. Though even there, Hirst was unable to explain why foreign (US) weather sites were forecasting the cold spell in the UK this January long before the Met alerted the British public If I were a UK taxpayer, I would want my money back.

Jimbo

wayne (23:34:03) :
Look what this Guardian article claims true science is:
“The ability to distinguish trends from complex random events is one of the traits that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.”
If so then why do some birds migrate?
Why is the Met Office, with its multi million pound supercomputer, unable to “distinguish trends from complex random events” and come up with an accurate seasonal forecast? Their 50% chance of milder than normal winter for 2009 which was later changed to 45% chance of a colder than normal winter seems very animalistic to me? :o)
Here are some more historic Arctic melt stories from way back:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm
http://www.icue.com/portal/site/iCue/flatview/?cuecard=41751
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Arctic.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1078291/
http://co2science.org/articles/V12/N32/C2.php
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2372
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826611.200-when-crocodiles-roamed-the-arctic.html

wayne

wayne (23:34:03) :
The more I think about Guardians definition of science the madder I get! Reading patterns in charts, detecting trends, boloney! Their beloved ‘scientists’ sure didn’t detect THIS pattern. They didn’t find THIS trend! You might as well throw in reading tea leaves and reading Al Gores palm creases into their definition of ‘true science’!

Bulldust

Dev (23:21:39) :
Bloody brilliant… loved every second of that. John Hirsh came across as a weasely politician trying to justify the very air he breathes. I see he stated the world will warm in the next decade… bring it on Juohn baby!
photon without a Higgs (23:22:45) :
Poor Anthony and mods if that does happen… he will have to sub-lease half of the Google hardware to keep up 😉

MarcH

The idea of unpredecented weather events in Australia is also well tested by early news reports. I found this report of drought conditions in the Lachlan a bit of a classic…
http://littleskepticpress.blogspot.com/2009/12/lachlan-river-valley-things-have-been.html

Roger Carr

Washington Post, November 2nd, 1922. “Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt” is a particularly good example of a way to calm hysteria. I have been pushing around (as recently as yesterday) as it has the same impact on others as it did on me when I saw it mentioned in a comment on WUWT? in early 2008.
When pointing to it I always say: “Check the dateline.”
That is where the shock and awe begin…

JohnH

In the last 200 odd years there have been 4 climate change panics, 2 warming and 2 cooling, based on the frequency and sequence of the previous 4 panics the next one is due in 2030 and will be a cooling panic.
“The ability to distinguish trends from complex random events is one of the traits that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.”
should read
“The ability to distinguish imagined trends from complex random events and think you can change them is one of the traits that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.”
We dislike change and prefer certainty, ask any nursery nurse or old care home assistant what is the easiest way to keep their charges happy and they will say a regualar routine.

Michael

Just to clarify for those who can’t think for themselves; The Global Cooling we have now, is the opposite of Global Warming.

Rhys Jaggar

Well, based on non-scientific arguments, it might be possible to postulate that a ‘regime change’ happened in 1918 ish to warm conditions, another one around 1950ish to cold conditions and another around 1980ish to warm again.
I note that ice is forming around Spitzbergen, if you think the NSIDC satellite data is sound, so we may be returning to a new ‘cold regime’ for the next 3 decades in the Norwegian/Russian sector of the arctic.
Will this be accompanied by a ‘warmer regime’ around Newfoundland?
I guess that’s for the experts to educate us about…………..

Paul Maynard

Timing Could Not be Better
Today, Penn Hadow will give a lecture to the Insurance Institute of London on Climate Change and the results of his “scientific” expedition to the North Pole to
no doubt discover “The ability to distinguish trends from complex random events is one of the traits that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is also the basis of all science; detecting patterns, distinguishing between signal and noise, and the means by which the laws of physics, chemistry and biology are determined.”
Hee hee
Paul

Adam Gallon

It does make one wonder, why it’s taken Fox the thick end of 2 years to raise this?

The arctic melting in the period 1920-1940 is very well documented as expeditions there to view the rapidly melting ice became the equivalent of todays celebrity jaunts to the area.
The most famous were those mounted by Bob Bartlett on the Morrissey. One memorable diary extract describes his observations of the mile wide face of a glacier falling in to the sea.
http://boothbayharborshipyard.blogspot.com/2008/08/arctic-explorer-on-ways.html
“Wednesday, 10th August 1932
The ship rolled heavily all night and continues to do so….
The glacier continues its disturbances. No real bergs break off but great sheets of ice slide down into the water and cause heavy seas. About noon, the entire face of the glacier, almost a mile in length and six or eight feet deep slid off with a roar and a rumble that must have been heard at some distance. We were on deck at the time for a preliminary report like a pistol shot had warned us what was coming. The Morrissey rolled until her boats at the davits almost scooped up the water and everything on board that was not firmly anchored in place crashed loose. But this was nothing to the pandemonium on shore. I watched it all through the glasses. The water receded leaving yards of beach bare and then returned with a terrific rush, bringing great chunks of ice with it. Up the beach it raced further and further, with the Eskimos fleeing before it. It covered all the carefully cherished piles of walrus meat, flowed across two of the tents with their contents, put out the fire over which the noonday meal for the sled drivers was being prepared, and stopped a matter of inches before it reached the pile of cement waiting to be taken up the mountain. Fortunately, in spite of heavy sea, which was running, the Captain had managed to be set shore this morning so he was there with them to help straighten out things and calm them down.”
There are pathe news reels of his voyages which your grandparents may have watched at the cinema in the 1930’s, and books on the subject.
Here is a bibliography of material relating to him.
http://www.nlpubliclibraries.ca/nlcollection/pdf/guides/NL_Collection_Guide_11.pdf
These are two technical examinations of the 1920 arctic melting referenced here;
ftp://ftp.whoi.edu/pub/users/mtimmermans/ArcticSymposiumTalks/Smolyanitsky.pdf
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html
This free online book by Dr Arnd Bernaerts examines the last great warming -prior to the modern one- in great detail.
Arctic warming 1919-1939. Author: Dr Arnd Bernaerts
. http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/chapter_1.html
My own study demonstrated a surprisingly warm period recorded in the arctic around 1815-1860 and was carried here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688
I have often written short pieces on the frequent episodes of Arctic warming back to the Ipiatuk some 3000 years ago, and one day will work them up into a longer piece. There is simply nothing the slightest bit out of the ordinary regarding extensive arctic ice melt at very regular intervals.
Tonyb

kadaka

photon without a Higgs (23:22:45) :
I still want to see 250,000,000 by January 1, 2011.

Do you think the site has the bandwidth to host the exclusive video of the pagan sacrifice of Al Gore to appease the Sun God and beg for the return of the warmth?
Of course if you can think of something else that could get that many hits, well, feel free to suggest it. Might be a bit tough gathering enough practicing Druids for my idea anyway…

“Doesn’t even remotely sound like the definition of science I learned years ago!! What happened to the scientific method??”
————————————
Don’t be silly. The scientific method is so early 20th century. Only new improved climate science can get you the reliable, constant and immediate conclusions you need, no matter what is actually happening in reality. Only with climate science can you start with whatever conclusion you want¬* and then work backwards to selectively fit evidence to the conclusion. Ah, but what if the evidence does not fit the conclusion? that is NOT a problem with climate science as we have two possible ways to deal with such an eventuality:
1. safely ignore or reject any contradictory evidence and denounce anyone who raises it as a flat-earther or denier.
2. edit the evidence, overly un-related evidence over the actual evidence to “smooth” the evidence to fit the theory.
Yes only in climate science can outright lies be passed off as truth and the dodgy methods involved can be legitimately suppressed. Even the pesky freedom of information act cannot hinder data manipulation**
Feeling sad that politicians do not take your conclusions seriously enough? Not enough certainty with the old, difficult “scientific method”? Too much variability? Not to worry, NEW climate science gives you all the certainty you could possibly need. Have politicians and the media scaring little children and giving them nightmares in no time. YES with NEW climate science, even polar bears falling out of the sky and monkeys and kangaroos committing suicide becomes believable.
SO throw out all those old science text books, and embrace climate science, where conclusions lead the science wherever YOU want it to go!
¬* so long as the conclusion is runaway global warming. Remember that in climate science, you give us your conclusion before we give you the grant to pay for your research!!!
** does not guarantee to eliminate the possibility of whistle blowers exposing the truth.

Benjamin

I got a real kick out the part where it said that reports from fishermen, hunters, reseachers all point to a radical change in the climate.
Oh really, now? And I suppose, then, that all the reports of alien abductions over the years point to an imminent invasion from the next system over?
And I didn’t note the date, at first, so I mistook that for an article written in recent times. Now, I like to think that some day future generations will look back on this and laugh their keesters off over how dumb we were. I’m not so sure about that now…

el gordo

Captain Martin Ingebrigteen ‘says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that today the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917.’
The warm PDO kicked off in 1916 and 1976 – the great climate shift is under our nose and has nothing to do with AGW.

P Wilson

Dev (23:21:39) :
That was quite amusing. In effect he said:
Our short term forecasts are impeccable -when the short term is the present we can tell you what is happening. (and was hitherto predicted by anyone but the Met Office)
Our very long term forecasts are excellent. The best in the world. This is proven by the fact that they haven’t happened yet but will in the future.

Trevor Cooper

In the BBC interview, John Hirsh claims that iin 1999 the Met Office forecast a levelling off in global temperature rise over the coming decade (as has happened).
Is he correct?

King of Cool

I thought the basis of all science was:
1. Define the problem
2. Gather information
3. Form hypothesis
4. Collect data and experiment
5. Analyze
6. Form conclusions
7. Publish results
8. Apply quality assurance and independent testing.
9. Revise conclusions and go back to step 3.
AGW goes 6, 3, 1, 4 and 7. Step 2 is incomplete, step 5 is token and steps 8 and 9 are disregarded.

Andrew30

wayne (23:34:03) :
“What happened to the scientific method??”
I think there may be a connection here somewhere.
Monday 27 July 2009 19.06 BST:
“The Scott Trust Charitable Fund supports projects associated with independent journalism, journalist ethics, media literacy and journalist training, both in the UK and abroad.”

“The Trust has also joined forces with the BBC and Reed Elsevier to take part in a two-year project with the Global Reporting Initiative to develop specific metrics for the global media industry on how to report on their corporate social responsibilities”
—-
Scott Trust = Guardian
BBC = Government
Reed Elsevier = New Scientist
—-
Still looking for the common financial interest link….

PaulB

So it was warm in November 1922. Why is it that those Flat Earthers who consider the sun to be the prime cause of of our variable climate, not man, are not surprised?
[URL=http://img260.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=56083_Sunspot_Nos_1900_to_1940_122_429lo.jpg][IMG]http://img260.imagevenue.com/loc429/th_56083_Sunspot_Nos_1900_to_1940_122_429lo.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

JohnH

Correction 200 years should have read 110 years, here’s the webpage from 2006 that lists them plus some of the press reports and learned papers.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

Stephen Wilde

It is patently obvious that the global air circulation systems moved poleward from around 1975 and that resulted in a small amount of warming in the troposphere.
It is equally obvious that they started moving equatorward again as long ago as 2000 which is a fact that I noted at the time and that I have been proclaiming for two years now. That resulted in, first a pause in warming and now, probably a cooling.
Unless one can link CO2 levels in the air to those air circulation movements then CO2 as any sort of climate driver is as dead as the Dodo.

Sam Lau

“The ability to distinguish trends from complex random events is one of the traits that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is also the basis of all science; detecting patterns, distinguishing between signal and noise, and the means by which the laws of physics, chemistry and biology are determined.”
They have simply snap themselves.
Their inability to distinguish the signal and noise would implies that they are not scientists of any kind. Not to mention that they have actually twist the fundamentals of the science.

stephen richards

Dev (23:21:39) :
Niel let him off the hook on the prediction from 1998/9 though, which was a shame. They did not forecast a levelling off of global temps in that year but Hirst said they did. Niel should have had that prediction to hand. Nvere the less it was a typical robust Niel interview and made Hirst very uncomfortable.

DirkH

“wayne (23:34:03) :
[…]
“The ability to distinguish trends from complex random events is one of the traits that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is also the basis of all science; detecting patterns, distinguishing between signal and noise, and the means by which the laws of physics, chemistry and biology are determined.”
[…]
Doesn’t even remotely sound like the definition of science I learned years ago!! What happened to the scientific method??”
Move over Popper, Get lost Occam, hello, Dr. Mann…
They seem to place more of their chips on Methane now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8437703.stm
Burn it before it reaches the atmosphere! Quick!

Chris Schoneveld

I liked the sentiment expressed in the last sentence: “The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favourable ice conditions will continue for some time”
“Favourable” indeed!

The article was also read yesterday morning by Steve Ducie on the “Fox and Friends show”.

Thortung

Really enjoyed the skewering of John Hirst. The Met Office should be privatized, perhaps then a few minds would be concentrated on accurate forecasting rather than propaganda.

observer

Look about now would be a good time to reflect upon just what a marvel a truly brilliant scientist is. Not the BS IPCC variety. I’m talking Albert Einstein, Max Plank, Neils Bohr and the like. People have by and large taken for granted our amazing ascent from the very basic level of knowledge just a century or so ago to the meteoric rise in knowhow of the modern age. No wonder the general public were so easilly fooled into believing that real science has anything to do with this farcical agw movement. Instead of celebrating the achievement of real scientists that have led to our amazing era of modern technology people have instead displayed a preference to vilify it. Great scientists of the past, it should be reminded to the general public, have gifted the world with a heroic and truly amazing legacy. At 10,000m altitude every passenger of a long haul flight should be grateful that the true and highly disciplined science that underpins aeronautical engineering was behind the design of their aircraft and the not the BS science version of the IPCC.

marchesarosa

I thought this report was so fascinating that I re-typed it in a more accessible layout and posted it on my blog here a month ago.
http://thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=31
I think it’s a bit of a killer, myself and worth a million proxy studies!

To quote one of the greatest anthropologists of all time ( Loren Eiseley):
Why should it take so much longer for an ape to become a caveman than for a caveman to become an Einstein?
More than 90%of the worlds animal life of past periods is dead, though it flourished in some instances longer than the whole period of human development, somewhere along its evolutionary path it vanished without descendants, or it was transformed, through still mysterious biological process,into something else.
We can’t trace the living races far into the past. We know little or nothing about why man lost his fur….Though theories abound, we know little about why man became man at all.
And after only 12,000 years of ”human” presence, climate science is settled.

RexAlan

John Hirst was the head of WWF which used to look after wildlife, but is now an advocacy group supporting AGW.
Thanks JohnH
“In the last 200 odd years there have been 4 climate change panics, 2 warming and 2 cooling, based on the frequency and sequence of the previous 4 panics the next one is due in 2030 and will be a cooling panic”.
I remember at school being told the story of the little boy who “cried wolf.”
Just a thought!
RexAlan
PS, And in the future there will be great towers that harvest the wind! and then….and then….wooden shoes

RexAlan

I also remember having to write an essay for English class entitled.
“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”.
Quite appropriate really considering our knowledge of climate science and what is being proposed to fix AGW.

Mac

In the summer of 1930 the remains of Andrée’s Balloon Expedition to the North Pole 1897 were found on the island Vitön east of Svalbard. This was due to unusually strong melting of ice and snow because of a warm summer. Interestingly, Dr. A. Hoel (then Head of the Svalbard Office in Oslo) was a member of the Commission sent out to investigate the camp and collect the three bodies later cremated in Stockholm. Photographs from 1897 could be developed and printed after 33 years on the island.
It seems that warm spells and strong melting are not that unusual in the Arctic.
/Max

oldgifford

Met Office Video available on YouTube
Andrew Neil relentlessly grills John Hirsh, head of the Met Office

Peter of Sydney

It will all come down to this. In years to come when the climate has either cooled more or has not warmed much at all, the AGW alarmists will be laughed at like the clowns they are. It’s that simple.

johnh

In the Andrew Neil grilling of the Met Cheif ref in post 1, John Hirsh claimed the Met office had predicted the leveling off of temps after 1998 back in that period. The Met Office press release archive only goes back to 2007.
Anyone seen this elusive forecast.
Here’s what they said in Jan 2007, hardly reads like a prediction of levelling off.
2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office.
Each January the Met Office, in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, issues a forecast of the global surface temperature for the coming year. The forecast takes into account known contributing factors, such as solar effects, El Niño, greenhouse gases concentrations and other multi-decadal influences. Over the previous seven years, the Met Office forecast of annual global temperature has proved remarkably accurate, with a mean forecast error size of just 0.06 °C.
Met Office global forecast for 2007
Global temperature for 2007 is expected to be 0.54 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C;
There is a 60% probability that 2007 will be as warm or warmer than the current warmest year (1998 was +0.52 °C above the long-term 1961-1990 average).

As Trevor mentions above, has anyone got any link to where (as the head of the Met Office states) they predicted a levelling-off of temperature in 1999? In all my years of following the Met Office’s forecasts and the CET I have never heard this before. It would indeed be quite a brownie point for them if their models predicted 11 years of no warming, and I certainly think this is a lie by John Hirst five minutes into this interview http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8443687.stm Andrew Neil has never been higher in my estimation. At last, a journalist who has done his research!

thechuckr

“DR (17:50:57) :
My earlier post I’m guessing was deleted because it was not a direct link? I found the original below. Interesting read.
IS OUR CLIMATE CHANGING? A STUDY OF LONG-TIME TEMPERATURE TRENDS
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/061/mwr-061-09-0251.pdf
REPLY: Hi DR, perhaps your earlier post got caught in the SPAM filter, that sometimes happens. Thanks for providing this resource, it is quite interesting.”
Reading back through that article. It would be interesting to compare the temperatures shown in the graphs and table to the “value added” data from HAD CRUT and NASA.

You can ask for proof of John Hirst’s claim that the Met Office predicted the levelling-off of temps in 1999 here:
enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk
Please do so, I have.

jeez

There is no way the Met office made that prediction, but there was a famous published paper a couple of years, probably 2007 or early 2008 that said warming would stall for 10-14 years then take off again.

Stephen Wilde (01:47:55) :
You wrote, “It is patently obvious that the global air circulation systems moved poleward from around 1975 and that resulted in a small amount of warming in the troposphere,” and continued with, “It is equally obvious that they started moving equatorward again as long ago as 2000 which is a fact that I noted at the time and that I have been proclaiming for two years now. That resulted in, first a pause in warming and now, probably a cooling.”
Unfortunately, TLT anomaly data does not support what you’ve written:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2dt9b37.png

Galen Haugh

Robert Norwood (14:29:53) :
(said in part)
“There is not one molecule of evidence to suggest that we, humans, have a positive impact on the planet. ”
—–
Reply: Robert, that’s a very myopic view of this earth and man’s impact.
One good “molecule of evidence” that indicates humans have a tremendous positive impact on this earth is the demonstrable fact that trees are now growing 27% faster because of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Expand your horizons a bit and view the video from this link:
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
And there is this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0603-can_carbon_dioxide_be_a_good_thing.htm
The benefits of CO2 far outweigh any slight negative impact, which has been hyped and fudged to the level of criminal activity. The deserts will blossom as the rose because plants do a whole lot better on significantly less water with increased CO2. And since healthier plants worldwide contribute significantly to the food supply and better habitat for other animals, I see a distince benefit from man’s activities.