Fortunately, the Internet has a memory. Here’s some excerpts from the story by Damian Carrington. After reading it, I can see why they disappeared it.
The planet’s last great global ice melt left a benign and balmy climate in which civilisation was cradled: the new great melting heralds a grave threat to civilisation
Our planet is waving the white flag of surrender. But as the polar flag becomes ever more tattered, with holes scorched by hotter ocean waters, humanity pumps ever more globe-warming gases into the air.
…
In 2007, a new record was set for the minimum summer sea ice cover in the Arctic had halved. This furious flag waving attracted attention. That year, the world’s scientists declared the end of any doubt that our addiction to burning fossil fuels was changing the face of the planet. Al Gore expounded his inconvenient truth and the world seemed set to act.
Today, that 2007 record is smashed and the shredded white flag is now flickering rathering than flashing. But the danger is greater than even, even if the alarm signal is frayed.
…
Decades from now, will today’s record sea ice low be seen as the moment when our Earthly paradise gave up the ghost and entered a hellish new era? I sincerely hope not, but with this global distress signal failing to attract attention, I fear the worst.
You can read the whole article archived here: http://old-news.co.uk/category/guardian/
h/t to Tom Nelson
BTW there’s still ice at the pole, see it in the WUWT sea ice page
=================================================
UPDATE: It was offline earlier. I guess now that we showed the cat was out of the bag they decided to put it back online.
– Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks for helping making my point David Ball –
Insults are the backstop when argument fails for too many sceptics – plus the usual ‘you are not welcome here’ line.
Do you think that putting text in caps with lots of !s makes it any more valid ?
So long as Anthony allows me, (and I appreciate it is his site) I will look forward to being able to make more postings in the future and will not be scared off.
Still waiting for a response to my questions though, which I will read with my eyes and not my ears….
James Abbott says:
September 14, 2012 at 4:52 pm
“Insults are the backstop when argument fails for too many sceptics – plus the usual ‘you are not welcome here’ line.”
Where did I say any of these things? Where did I insult you? Respond to what Kadaka ACTUALLY said.
James Abbott says:
September 14, 2012 at 4:08 pm
“Can you please say what the natural cycle is that is causing the arctic ice cap to melt – so fast ?”
http://drtimball.com/2012/2012-arctic-ice-melt-claims-distorted-and-inaccurate-its-the-wind-stupid/
The simplest explanation is the most likely explanation. None of your speculative (at best) explanations necessary.
You also need to show that the Arctic is doing anything that it has not done in the past. But you cannot as there is no data to support this.
“Look, look, I’m being repressed”. 8^D
James Abbott says:
September 14, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Stop whining. You get off scott free compared to the treatment I get at ANY pro-warmist site.
http://drtimball.com/2012/current-global-weather-patterns-normal-despite-government-and-media-distortions/
http://drtimball.com/2012/sensationalist-and-distorted-climate-stories-increase-as-climate-science-failures-exposed/
jones says:
September 14, 2012 at 4:51 pm
There is an interesting historic reconstruction for the Antarctic and the end of this article
http://drtimball.com/2011/they-are-still-trying-to-rewrite-climate-to-show-current-conditions-are-abnormal/
Will try to find more, but have both kids at the mo.
higley7 says:
“Never mind that the Arctic ICE VOLUME has essentially tripled or more since 2007. These guys live in a 2-D world. Would they be happy if the Arctic was ice covered but only 1 inch thick? THEN they would be touting ice thickness and not the area.”
Are there data and graphical representations of this anywhere? A large increase in Arctic ice volume since 2007 is something I haven’t seen numbers for.
I read a lot of stuff about temperatures, solar cycles, cyclone and tornado activity, etc., but I don’t remember seeing anything much about Arctic ice other than wind patterns and sea ice extent (area).
I would be fascinated to see numbers showing a trebling of Arctic ice volume. Is this actually true? If so, then the latest scare mongering by warmists could be addressed in a more easily understandable way. And we need to keep it very basic for our wide-eyed alarmist friends.
Warmist members of the public are almost exclusively very simple people with little or no understanding of science. This is how the U.N. and their political representatives in America, Europe, Australia, etc., have made such progress with their CAGW agenda, despite the complete lack of corroborating evidence.
Every man and his dog knows greenhouses keep plants warm, so the ‘greenhouse gas’ scare was an easy sell, even though the atmosphere doesn’t behave anything like a pane of glass in a greenhouse (and recent re-calculations of Earth’s planetary greenhouse effect indicate we would only be 10K cooler without it, rather than the 33K commonly touted).
The only thing the warmists have at the moment which shows any plausible positive correlation with the Global Warming theme is a cyclical decrease in Arctic sea ice extent (which was much lower 7000 years ago anyway). For this reason, papers like the Guardian and other MSM will be hammering away at it for all they’re worth – after all, they have nothing else in their armoury but failed computer models.
If we can demonstrate a large increase in Arctic sea ice volume since 2007, I think this would help to relieve their anxiety.
Then the advent of solar-mediated global cooling, expected by solar physicists to become apparent over the next two winters, will finally put CAGW to rest before it has caused too much economic damage.
To James Abbott:
Your statement:
Okay, I’ll attempt to give a response. First, you are putting words in my mouth with your ridiculous statement that “…those glaciers will be just fine in glorious isolation…”. I didn’t say that melting wasn’t occurring; merely that the rate was relatively slow. This is especially true with respect to the more hysterical statements by Hansen et al.
Your “Baffin Island” issue is a joke; the glaciers there would make a contribution to sea level that’s in the noise. Ditto “the rest of the Arctic” glaciers. As to Greenland “accelerating melt”, for whatever cause, again, so what? Right now, the estimate I have heard out of non-hysterical portions of your warmist camp is 1500 years for the entire Greenland cap to melt. In addition, there have been published papers showing that the Greenland ice sheet did not completely melt even when temperatures were 5 degrees C. greater than the present; so there is some doubt as to whether the entire Greenland ice sheet would melt.
Assume the worst–that the entire Greenland ice sheet melts. Assume there is some acceleration for whatever reason. Acceleration by a factor of 7 is still over 200 years for the sea level to go up by an estimated 7 meters. That is more than enough time to apply whatever mitigation strategy we may work out.
Thank you kindly Dr Ball.
To higley7:
Your casual assertion that Arctic ice volume has “…essentially tripled or more since 2007…” really caught me off guard. I’d like to join Interested in asking for the source for this statement.
jones says:
September 14, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Dr. Ball is my father. His website is easy to find. Dr. Tim Ball.com
Why do these people hate warmth and hope for cold and ice? I for one don’t care if every bit of the ice melts. This planet has existed in the past without ice and yet life still flourished and evolved. Why wouldn’t life flourish in the future when all the ice is gone?
Do they not find fossils in Antarctica. In fact they actually find wood. Is it better off covered with ice?
James Abbott, often the most obvious and simple explanations are by far the over riding cause of things.
It has been noted that the sun for the later half of the twentieth century was in a state of high excitement , this it would seem pumped a bit of extra heat into the oceans. It can also be noted that at this time the sun is resting.
There is a lag in a dynamic system as large as the earth and looking at the ocean heat anomalies you will see that the excess ocean heat has meandered north and impinging on the sea ice.
This is a negative feed back dumping heat, ultimately to space. This warm water in the north can lead to extra snow and bad winters in the northern hemisphere.
Conversely down south the warm waters moving poleward are mixed by the circumpolar currents and do not make a lot of difference. It can also be noted that the Antarctic reacts quickly to the state of the sun and has been cooling for quite some time.
Up north again, negative feed back mechanisms in a system so large tend to overshoot especially when the extra heat coming in the system stops coming as is the case with a quite sun.
Summers come and go and are rarely notable, winters are the enemy of mankind.
“But as the polar flag becomes ever more tattered, with holes scorched by hotter ocean waters”
Sounds like a great holiday destination – swim in the hot ocean waters or simply laze on remnant ice flows…
Really ? What do you think will happen to the glaciers in Greenland, Baffin Island and the rest of the arctic if the sea ice goes ? No glacial acceleration due to mechanical change (loss of coastal sea ice) ?
None of the Greenland glaciers reach the open ocean, so loss of sea ice will have no direct effect.
No increase in air temperature due to loss of ice refrigeration of surface air ?
This doesn’t mean anything. The main effect of loss of sea ice is increased ocean evaporation, which will cause increased snowfall over Greenland and increased ice mass.
No feedback effect of albedo change from light to dark surfaces ?
Increased snowfall will increase Greenland’s albedo. If you are referring to ocean albedo, then ocean evaporation is much larger heat flow, and sea ice loss is a negative (cooling) feedback.
The calculated warming effects of Co2 keep dropping at an unprecedented rate. Our models, for which we have to “infill the missing data”, have shown by extrapolating the trend that by 2030 there will be no effect whatsoever. Trust us they are accurate. Send money now to help stop the decline. We have to act now or there will be nothing to fear in the future. Do it for the grandchildren’s niece’s and nephews. ubersarc/off
Some might enjoy this article; http://www.fcpp.org/files/1/PS142_PBearPropaganda_SP06F1.pdf
James?…….
The Guardian has a story on September 14 written by Adam Vaughan the headline of which is “Arctic sea ice hits record low: updates and reactions” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/sea-ice
James Abbot,
Sorry if you feel offended. However you have failed to respond to my observation, made at 10:11 on Sept 14, before you commented.
How do you explain the failure to note an area of ice 30 by 11 miles, (330 square miles,) to be noted on maps? Also, considering “new” ice is around ten feet thick at most, how do you explain some of the noted ice being 80 feet thick? Could it not be ice that was piled up by that mid-summer storm?
By next spring the ice will again be ten feet thick. Even if it is only three feet thick, that is plenty thick enough for female Ringed Seals (the main food for Polar Bears) to escavate dens in, and have pups in.
Ringed Seals are the only seals that can survive up there when the sea is totally ice-covered. They have claws that can keep air-holes open. The females dig a den at the top of the air hole, in the softer snow that exists on top of the ice.
Female Ringed Seals do not have pups now, when the ice is scattered. However environmentalists claim the lack of ice will endanger the seals. They are sueing, costing the tax-payers money and making it harder for oil companies to drill.
http://www.adn.com/2012/09/12/2621712/environmental-group-sues-to-protect.html
Considering this sort of frivolous lawsuit hurts the local economy in Alaska, you can expect some people to be grumpy. When you mess up another’s ability to earn a living, you had better expect comments that are less than polite.
Grow a thicker skin.
@James Baldwin Abbot
Wow…ok I’m going to have to be a lot nicer than I would like to be with this post. I will also go very S L O W so you might be able to wrap your mind the things that I am saying.
You said I discounted an ice free arctic…I’m really baffled as to how you can draw that conclusion from my post other than extremely, and I mean mind bogglingly extremely poor reading comprehension.
I said when (not if) the ice finally disappears… let’s go over that slowly
W H E N not I F the ice disappears. Ok. Let that sink in a minute.
That means I’m *E X P E C T I N G A F U L L M E L T* am I not?
Let me know when that lightbulb goes off.
Tears of a clown?
The BBC were doing the same thing recently – having their cake and eating it.
Global Warming causes heat and drought in 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16366078
Global Warming causes cold weather and floods in 2012.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19508906
So whatever the weather, the BBC has it firmly blamed on ‘Global Warming’. Yet not a peep from the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, that Antarctic sea ice is at record levels:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
I am utterly disgusted with the BBC’s contempt for real science.
.
Keith
Some have observed that no one much reads the Guardian. Unfortunately, the BBC take more copies of the Guardian than any other paper, and recruit virtually exclusively via that paper.
———————————————-
The BBC takes half the Grauniad’s print run.
If it were not for the BBC, they would have been bankrupt the minute Nu Labour were kicked out of office (Labour kept the Grauniad going with millions of adverts for ‘Five-a-Day Officers’ – (don’t ask…..).
.