UPDATE: A companion essay to this one, showing how Alaska’s 30 year period of warmth is a product of ocean cycles and now coming to an end is now online here.
“America’s First Climate Refugees” are actually a victim of a poorly executed previous government relocation program in 1959 and a change in ocean patterns in 1976.
Some days you just have to laugh at these clowns. The Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg seems to be in a clown class by herself when it comes to totally botching a story. I suspect her emotions got the better of her. For example, what are the odds that this photo was staged?

Such photo manipulation of children by the press has happened before. Flooded area? Hardly. It’s a permafrost puddle, one of thousands in the region around Newtok as part of the natural landscape, though this one may be the result of human influence on the permafrost. Note the concrete remnants.
Here, in this photo from the Fish and Wildlife Service, you can see what I’m speaking of.

Permafrost is a powerful influence on tundra life. In summer, it traps a layer of water close to the surface, keeping many tundra soils soggy. It cools the soil and the roots of tundra plants, slowing decomposition and growth. Its presence influences freeze-thaw cycles, forming unique tundra landforms.
Polygons (pictured to the right) form when soil contraction creates cracks that collect water above the permafrost layer. This water then freezes and expands, forming ice wedges that force the cracks to widen. Years pass and the process repeats, dry winter cold widening cracks, and summer thaws providing water. Joined across the landscape, these cracks create a network of polygons.
In fact if you look at the aerial photos of region around Newtok, you’ll note it is a close match to the USF&W description, that is, when it isn’t a frozen city:

Note all the human habitation. Here’s what USF&W says about that and permafrost:
Thermokarst Slumping
Where the insulating layer of plant material has been removed, permafrost melts and the ground above slumps. This is called thermokarst slumping, and it can be a big problem where humans have disturbed the soils.
Goldenberg of course thought nothing of those chunks of old concrete the child was standing on, preferring to blame global warming instead. She probably had to, since it is likely she made the pitch to Guardian editors based on that. I can’t imagine her getting funding for the trip to document some “Thermokarst Slumping”. Yeah that’ll fly. No we need climate refugees.
What is most interesting is that that villagers didn’t choose to live there, they were forced to by the Alaskan government, they were refugees back in 1959:
The Yup’iks, who had lived in these parts of Alaska for hundreds of years, had traditionally used the area around present-day Newtok as a seasonal stopping-off place, convenient for late summer berry picking.
Even then, their preferred encampment, when they passed through the area, was a cluster of sod houses called Kayalavik, some miles further up river. But over the years, the authorities began pushing native Alaskans to settle in fixed locations and to send their children to school.
It was difficult for supply barges to manoeuvre as far up river as Kayalavik. After 1959, when Alaska became a state, the new authorities ordered villagers to move to a more convenient docking point.
Hmm, I’ll trust the Yup’iks to know better where to camp, after all, they had thousands of years of experience before the bureaucrat tribe set foot in Alaska. When you get relocated to an island surrounded by running rivers on all sides, do you think erosion might be a problem in your future?

Then, Goldenberg tries to convince readers of the global warming threat with this temperature graph (showing much of the year being below normal)

But, when you look at Alaska as a whole in this graph from the Alaska Climate research Center, temperature is trending down since about 2000 and is below normal for 2012:
![StateWide_Change_1949-2012_F[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/statewide_change_1949-2012_f1.png?resize=1110%2C755&quality=75)

Since Newtok is in what the Alaska Climate Research Center describes as “maritime”, and only about 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean, you can safely bet the climate there is closely linked with ocean temperatures.
Note that in the graph above, about 1976, the temperature of Alaska changed dramatically. Why?
Perhaps this paper will tell us more: Hartmann and Wendler 2005 “The Significance of the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift in the Climatology of Alaska.”
I have a definitive essay from Bob Tisdale coming up next that I’ve been sitting on for months, for just this occasion, that will show that the “global warming” that Goldenberg claims is ruining towns in Alaska, is really all about a change in ocean patterns.
With what looks to be another climate shift in the making now, what will a colder future do for this problem in Alaska?
Finally, about that erosion.
Here is the Corp of Engineers report Goldenberg references:
A study by the US Army Corps of Engineers on the effects of climate change on native Alaskan villages, the one that predicted the school would be underwater by 2017, found no remedies for the loss of land in Newtok.
That report makes no mention of “global warming” being the cause of the issues at Newtok either in the summary or the conclusions. They say it is erosion, enhanced by “thermal degradation”, something you’d expect in a village that has disturbed the soil and has gone from heating their homes naturally (in those upriver sod houses pre-1959) to now using heating oil as evidenced by the oil tanks in the lead photo from the Guardian article and in the Google Earth imagery. Apparently the river is silting up making delivery a problem, from Anchorage Daily News:
One of Alaska’s most eroded coastal villages is facing a new crisis: the closest river has gotten so shallow that barges can no longer make regular fuel deliveries to the remote community.
The Corp of Engineers says about the erosion:
Newtok’s riverine erosion on the Ninglick River is aggravated by wave action and thermal degradation of the ice-rich riverbank. The long-term, average erosion rate is 71 feet per year, with peak erosion of approximately 113 feet in a single year. The community is experiencing almost annual flooding and has a water supply contaminated by flood-driven sewage spills. Severe damage is expected within 10 years. The community is actively involved in relocating and is pursuing several
projects to relocate as quickly as possible.
My view is that Newtok was a bad place for the government to relocate the Yup’iks to in the first place, and all was likely fine for awhile, but then the soil was disturbed, permafrost issues like “Thermokarst Slumping” took hold in that small area of habitation, the soil started to weaken and become more prone to erosion, waste heat and other issues associated with the habitation exacerbated the issue, and then the Pacific Climate Shift of 1976 kicked it, long before James Hansen started wailing about the threat of global warming in 1988.
Do you think the Yup’iks would be labeled “climate refugees” by an climate activist reporter today if they were still living upriver where they originally preferred to be? Looks like a clear case of the Prime Directive being violated and resulting in a government created mess to me.
Of course beach erosion in Alaska isn’t new. The only thing that new is activist disguised as reporter Suzanne Goldenberg thinks there’s a news story about global warming there.
See this from climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels in 2007:
World Climate Report » Settling on an unstable Alaskan shore: A warning unheeded
In earlier times, when the Inuit were more nomadic, they simply would have broken camp and moved to a more suitable location. In fact, the historical scientific literature contains references to abandoned Inuit camps located on the precipices of an eroding coast. For instance, Gerald MacCarthy, in an article published in Arctic in 1953 entitled “Recent Change in the Shoreline Near Point Barrow, Alaska” wrote:
At ‘Nuwuk’ [Point Barrow] the evidence of rapid retreat is especially striking. The abandoned native village of the same name, which formerly occupied most of the area immediately surrounding the station site, is being rapidly eaten away by the retreat of the bluff and in October 1949 the remains of four old pit dwellings, then partially collapsed and filled with solid ice, were exposed in cross section in the face of the bluff. In 1951 these four dwellings had been completely eroded away and several more exposed.
Coming up next, Bob Tisdales essay on The Significance of the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift in the Climatology of Alaska.
Goldenberg would do well to read it before she traipses off to another Alaskan village to declare them “climate refugees”.
“Even in Newtok, there are some who believe climate change is caused by negative emotions, such as anger, hate and envy.”
Is she for real? Where do they come up with this stuff? The stupid, it burns.
The Guardian? Why would you even bother to read their drivel.. Simply clicking on their link so I can disagree with them is far more support than Im willing to give..
You know if I was going to do a story about a sinking village, I’d take a photo that showed a sinking village, not a photo of a puddle. Maybe they couldn’t get a photo of a sinking village?
The Guardian has a slogan…’comment is free’ I think they should add…’unless you disagree’!
As a lifelong Guardian reader, I am annoyed to be censored by their young moderators. Anyway, today I got one censored and three comments passed. Two here: (and do check my Google Earth link, it shows precisely the reason for erosion. The settlement sits on the downstream side on the outer bend of a large meandering river.):
1.
“Look at the Google Earth image, its fascinating: http://goo.gl/maps/9gKP9
The white dashed area around ‘A’, is presumably the ‘municipal district’ of the village. About a 3rd of it is in the river. Large meandering rivers, like this one, meander. That’s what they do. The village is sited at the most vulnerable location, right on the outer bend where erosion is strongest. Just like the east coast of Yorkshire, you can’t stop such erosion, unless you build massive man-made barriers, sea walls, etc, ie, by interfering with nature.
To the right (east) of the village, you can see a large area of melting ice up river. It could be that more rapidly melting ice is increasing the rate of erosion. But the erosion is inevitable.”
2.
“Nathan Tom says very clearly in the second video down in the link, that a big problem is that the snows are staying LATER, and the geese are laying eggs when there’s still snow.”
I thought that the USA’s first climate refugees were the retirees who moved to Florida and Arizona some considerable time ago.
From the Guardian discussion Lyons30 put up a link to WUWT saying basically that the article had been debunked by WUWT and gave a link. I later refreshed to find that it had been removed because:
The comment never violated their ‘standards’. No wonder the Guardians circulation is circulating down the toilet.
Lets be honest here.. These alarmists blow into these welfare towns with tall tales of easy money..
Its no surprise that they are open to the idea and would be willing to say or do most anything to secure the money..
So Im quite sure there is a endless supply of factoids when these two groups lock lips..
it boggles the mind that anybody would take anything they say seriously..
Here is the comment I last left at the Guardian.
Good one, Roger Tolson (at 3:25PM). And, as you I’m sure are aware, there is also the migrating species called “Snow Birds”. [:)]
The Guardian’s sole purpose is to keep its readers engaged by telling them what they want to hear.. Leftist green minded people go there because they know what to expect as well as how they will respond.. A safe haven with no intellectual risk involved..
The press isnt free anymore because the editorial staff are beholding to ever decreasing readership.. Advertising down, sponsorship down, readership down.. Now they are paywalling for content that isnt even worth pocket change.. 2.99 for biased BS? No thanks I get my BS for free..
Blogs are far more entertaining and informative..
Was that Goldberg in the second video where she asks Nathan (?) if he’s noticed any climate change and he says oh yeah the snow and ice is hanging around much longer which affects the geese laying and hatching their eggs. Hmm doesn’t sound like global warming to me. Wrong answer Nathan. Never mind it was quickly brushed over,
Here’s a report that says the problem is river erosion… and they blame climate change for causing more water to flow.
Oops.
http://commerce.alaska.gov/dca/planning/npg/pub/Mertarvik_Relocation_Report.pdf
The near once bankrupt Guardian newspaper is being pushed out across the internet by lefties to further inflict communist causes on the masses, while they enrich themselves as the holier than thous eco class. They must have some serious left wing colleagues at a certain search engine promoting their eco bible website. Parasites and green collar criminals the lot of them.
Nice analysis of the Guardian article as a piece of pure propaganda:
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/05/14/climate-refugee-50024/
I fear the silly claims of CAGW; AKA Man-Made-Global-Warming will continue for some time no matter how wrong they are and no matter how many times their utterly ridiculous claims are debunked. We are surrounded by myth – evil myth. Paul Erlich still makes a good living with his Population Bomb / Scarce Resources Rubbish – and isn’t his pal John Holdren continuing his stellar career as Obama’s “Science Czar”?
There is a market for this poison. It pays. Amazing and always surprising to me. I mean, after 2009, Climategate I, and then the disaster that was Copenhagen one would think at least a healthy even if minor case of skepticism would creep into the greater media; after all it is a great story and the skeptical blogs have had year after year of success and steady patronage. The media heads must read (or have a person assigned to read) this and other skeptical climate blogs and they just can’t be so pig headed, ignorant, or just stupid as to not get it.
Oh well, I’m really just voicing my amazement at how the beast just lives on and on and then this piece of dreck from the Guardian… No it’s not dead; maybe not even dieing. Sad.
Misrepresentation is the Guardians stock in trade. Put that together with a silly little activist like Goldenberg and misrepresentation on this scale is the least you can expect.
Thankfully very few of the public are either interested in their activism or willing to pay for the drivel in this publication. The paper is losing money on such a scale it is unlikely to last much longer.
Look guys, it is globally cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
This global cooling will not stop. It is a natural process.
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, less clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes (>40) it will become both much cooler and drier.
I recommend that those farmers in Alaska pack their bags and move towards the equator where there will be more rain in the decades to come, and not less.
I have to say that on the Guardian sceptical commenters are having a field day with debunking. A couple of folks claim to have visited the area and 1 claims a relative there. Both are sceptical of Goldenberg’s claims. You have to go to the second page of the comments. Goldenberg is an embarrassment to the journalistic profession (if such a thing is possible).
Newtok is 1.1 sq miles, has a population of 350, has 65 households and has a population density of about 345 per sq. mile. Apparently even a dog could cause permafrost slumping.
Here are some conclusions which surprisingly passed pre-moderation:
http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/23553055
Hmm. They sent this lady to a place where it is cold and muddy, with lots of mosquitoes? Did she offend someone back at the office?
Hi Oakwood, I read your piece and it certainly was a professional, journalistic standard comment. Better than Goldenberg’s fairy tale. Overall we sceptics have managed to eviscerate her nonsense. She failed to understand that there is a reason these people were traditionally semi-nomadic folk. They moved for reasons.
Good news and bad. Over at the Guardian I’m not banned yet but my comments now no longer appear instantly but go into moderation. I have replied to some nutcase who attempted to rebutt the main points so I’ll just have to wait and see. 🙁
I’ve been pre-moderated too for a while. But in a way, its to our advantage. Many pro-AGW comments are outrageously extreme, often quite nasty, and the most ridiculous claims get published because they give the ‘right’ answer. As sceptics, we are forced to be incredibly moderate and factual in our comments to stand any chance of being approved. Thus, we end up sounding more rational against the irate. Also, I no longer appear as “comment removed for breaking house rules ….”.
Oakwood,
This is indeed the case, and you are right we come over as calm and rational. Even when they call me names I resist the urge to bite their heads off in case I’m banned again. The best defence I find is to keep pointing them to the evidence and keep your comments as short as possible. The more you write the more they nitpick like a spelling mistake here or even 1 word or a wrong day there.
The Guardian has written to me and demanded that I take down the head photo, saying it violates copyright, but that I can purchase a license. I’ve reminded them of the fair use exceptions, especially where criticism is involved (I think it is staged and doesn’t represent what is claimed), and politely told them to bugger off. We’ll see what happens.