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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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]
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
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.
“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.
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.
“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!
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
This is worth a look.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html
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
Met Office Video available on YouTube
Andrew Neil relentlessly grills John Hirsh, head of the Met Office
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.
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!
“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.
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.
OT. We’re coping with the ‘weather’ here in the UK! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241199/Heres-make-Britains-winter-wonderland.html
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
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.