Guest post by David Middleton
Like a zombie, this island keeps resurrecting itself in the gullible press. Problem is, its been on the maps for 50+ years. From the Guardian yesterday:
New atlas shows extent of climate change
The world’s newest island makes it on to the map as the Arctic Uunartoq Qeqertaq, or Warming Island, is officially recognised
- John Vidal, environment editor
- guardian.co.uk, Thursday 15 September 2011
In Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, Greenland has lost around 15% of its ice cover between 10th edition (1999) (left) and 13th edition (2011) (right). Photograph: Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World
If you have never heard of Uunartoq Qeqertaq, it’s possibly because it’s one of the world’s newest islands, appearing in 2006 off the east coast of Greenland, 340 miles north of the Arctic circle when the ice retreated because of global warming. This Thursday the new land – translated from Inuit as Warming Island – was deemed permanent enough by map-makers to be included in a new edition of the most comprehensive atlas in the world…
[…]
Uunartoq Qeqertaq is not a new island. Pat Michaels debunked this particular Warmist myth back in 2008…
March 31, 2008
“Warming Island”—Another Global Warming Myth Exposed
In our continuing theme of exposing ill-founded global warming alarmist stories (see here and here for our most recent debunkings), we’ll examine the much touted discovery of “Warming Island”—a small piece of land that has been “long thought to be part of Greenland’s mainland”—but that turns out to have been known to be an island back in the early 1950s.
Another good story out the window.
As was the case of the previous two scare stories we examined that turned out to be untrue (global warming leading to amphibian decline in Central and South America, and the Inuit language lacking a word for ‘robin’), the story of “Warming Island” was also prominently featured in the New York Times. On January 17, 2007, The Times dedicated an article to “The Warming of Greenland” and described the recent “discovery” of islands that were exposed as such when the ice connecting them to the mainland melted away.
[…]
Uunartoq Qeqertaq was already an island back in 1957…
Figure 5. The map from the Preface of Hofer’s Arctic Riviera, zooming in to show the existence of “Warming Island” and its characteristic three-fingered shape (source: Arctic Riviera).
In 1957 there was Global Cooling going on. So they are correct that this is the first discovery after the 1980s Global Warming. /sarc
When youtube videos are the accepted scientific authority by the public, we have a problem.
http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/gore-isnt-lying#more-43556
Here is a link showing that sea level has been dropping for several years. If in fact Greenland ice was melting and going into the oceans then sea level should go up. Not happening. KR what say you?
@KR
At this rate, Greenland will someday return to the “green” state of viking days.
John B and KR,
Before getting too wild-eyed about this, it appears that the Atlas might be destined for an errata section of Himalayan proportions.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/17/glaciologists-condemn-guardian-misinformation.html
HBig tip…..
In the bishop hill comments section about this story.
Richard Betts is really annoyed, he wrote the climate change section for the Atlas.
He says that is not what he wrote, he is going to complain to the editors and the GUARDIAN
Richard Betts, is Head of Climate Impact for, UK Met Office, and an AR4 working gp 1 contributor, and a lead author for IPCC AR5, working group2
He sounds quite annoyed by media misinformation, and was twittering about it as well.
Richard Betts, Met Office & IPCC:
“I’m not happy. I wrote the climate change section for this Atlas and didn’t say any of that Greenland rubbish!
I have contacted the editors.
Sep 17, 2011 at 11:53 AM | Richard Betts”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/17/glaciologists-condemn-guardian-misinformation.html#comments
Tilo Reber says:
So, Greenland lost about 15% of it’s ice cover between 1999 and 2011. In that 12 years we gained about an inch and a quarter of sea level. So, if that 15% figure is true, then Greenland could lose all of its ice cover and we would only gain around 8 inches of sea level rise. Either we have nothing to fear from all of the Greenland ice melting or the 15% number is pure BS.
Maybe it’s 15% of area covered in ice. Rather than 15% of ice volume (or mass). Thus more that Greenland has lost some of its thinest ice.
A quote from post text – “Uunartoq Qeqertaq was already an island back in 1957…”
The ***military map*** from Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/onc/index.html?p=print
ONC C-1 Greenland, Iceland, Jan Mayen [Not for navigational use] U.S. Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center, compiled 1965 (11.4MB)
(compiled from 1951-63 – pp)
shows peninsula not an island.
Regards
KR: “See http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ – if all of Greenland melted we would see 6.5 meters of sea level rise. The 15% is obviously from the thinner snow/ice at the edges of the island. ”
So what we have here is another alarmist guardian article that is simply a lie. When people talk about 15% of the ice, other people believe 15% of the ice. But it’s really just 3-4% of the ice, and possibly 15% of the ice surface area. And considering that the actual sea surface rise came from other sources than Greenland as well, it’s likely that Greenland only lost between 1-3% of it’s ice. Once more, a nice job by the Guardian at grossly misleading the public. And the Guardian’s brain dead followers will be running through the streets like Chicken Little.
Sorry, I miscalculated. I was using 8 to 9 inches of sea level rise, while the correct number for the 12 year period was actually more like an inch and a quarter. The correct number for the real amount of ice melt should be 0.5% or less.
We’ve got an island like that. About 14 miles out. It’s gone by the names of Dog island and Isle of Caprice. The native Americans told stories of an island that would appear for many years, then vanish for several years. It appeared again in the mid 1800’s was declared a military preserve. Then vanished before the Civil War. I understand it reappeared in the 1890’s had a resort built on it. Then vanished again in the 1930’s. I wonder when it’ll show up again.
Must be global warming.
starzmom says:
September 17, 2011 at 5:32 am
When youtube videos are the accepted scientific authority by the public, we have a problem.
—————
Of course, real science is published in research papers. There is no problem when a youtube video makes such real science accessible to the public. The problem is when unsupported videos and, for that matter, blog posts are treated as if they were themselves science.
Greenland surface meteostation record:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_295-355E_55-85N_n_sua.png
Barely warmer than in 40ties.
Now, now, those of you who dare propose experimental science are confusing RealTruth with GoodTruth. You need to pay attention to JohnB and the IPCC so that you can state the GoodTruth – that is where all the money is, after all.
Don’t let the hoi polloi get confused by three orders of magnitude between 15% and 0.01%. It isn’t safe to move away from GoodTruth.
John B
Sort of like considering an article in the grauniad to be “science”.
Had a look at Eastern Greenland on Google maps, and I’m not convinced the three-fingered island is the island shown in Hofer’s map, which doesn’t look accurate. I think the peninsula shown to the south-east in the circle has the three fingers, which are on a smaller scale, and the bit that he’s marked as an island looks connected to the mainland to me. Although judge for yourselves.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=71.541439,-22.049561&spn=0.549616,2.796021&t=h&z=9&vpsrc=6
For those who are saying real science only happens in peer reviewed journals obviously haven’t been following the climate science journals. When one can publish an article with little comment and get people who consulted on the paper to be reviewers, there is no peer review and thus the journals have undercut their own authority! This is the state of current publication for those supporting CAGW, thus there is NO authority for their articles. A shame too, because I am sure some of these people may have stumbled upon some real observations that have been totally rubbished by the lack of standards for publication.
Sometimes the rough and tumble of the comments section of a site like this one resembles a closer peer review than climate science gets. There are several posters here who have suggested some very interesting ideas that can be pursued experimentally, this is where science is. Echo chambers rarely provide anything meaningful outside the study of acoustics. If I publish something, I would hope the reviewers would challenge my drafts and push my ideas to the limits. That process would reveal any weaknesses as well as avenues for future study.
It only takes one experiment to show a theory wrong, no matter how elegant the theory or how closely it models most aspects of the universe. If the experiment shows that the theory is wrong in a prediction, the theory is wrong and other explanations are needed. To me this is where CAGW fails, when the early proponents made predictions which were not borne out in later observations, the theory was proven wrong. Now the proponents are reduced to making predictions that predict every contradictory state available to prevent others from showing them wrong. That isn’t science, it’s snake oil.
@Nullius in Verba
A better link to the location:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=71.465196,-21.785889&spn=0.266726,1.451569&t=m&vpsrc=0&z=10
It’s evident in this map view that you are incorrect and Hofer’s accuracy is sufficient to clearly identify ‘Warming Island’ as an island.
Cadae,
Yes, you’re right. The first red box was obscuring the features just to the north, and they’re off the top of the map in the second, which is why I misplaced them. Thank you.
@ur momisugly HanH
I’m sorry – you are of course correct. Stupid mistake, I was thinking 3 dimensions,
but used only 2, so I had a dim left over – me.
just checked my 1635 mercators atlas for the north pole “and countries situate round about it” but unfortunately its too small a scale to see but its obvious that someone has been changing its shape and re-naming evrything ! but it does clearly say…
“or, greeneland is so called from the greenesse therof….. and ,if we believe Nicolas zenetus(who in the year 1480 endured much hard weather…and is continual winter for nine moneths…. for here is great increase in grasse and fodder”
the two inhabited places quoted as being “alba” and the monastry of St Thomas
darn revisionists !
I thought ice cap melting would drown or cover and island.
Or, more bluntly, “Effyoo Island”.
>:)
Next the warmists will accuse the ‘deniers’ of having mastered time travel so they could go back in time and leave fabricated evidence to ‘debunk’ AGW.
Here in central Texas there are several lakes behind dams on the Colorado River. This year the drought, as in many droughts of the past, has revealed numerous bodies of land that are underwater when the lakes are full. The islands are called “sometimes islands” and they are until a further drop in water level connects them to the land. Who knows, if the volcanoes blow (Cleveland in Alaska and Tambor in Indonesia) and we have a series of “years without summer” the sea level will drop and Warming Island will become just another peninsula.