But in fact the catastrophe may have been set in motion by a warm, wet year over Greenland in 1908, resulting in greater snow accumulation. Writing in the journal Weather, Grant Bigg and David Wilton of Sheffield University explain how the snow soaked through cracks in the ice sheet, encouraging excess iceberg calving over the following few years. Soberingly, global warming has increased iceberg hazard greatly in recent decades, making years like 1912 more the norm than the exception.
Yeah, but have a look at what this research actually says and you’ll understand why The Guardian is nothing more than agitprop.
Titanic Sunk During Average Iceberg Year
“more than a century of Atlantic iceberg counts reveals 1912 was an average year for dangerous floating ice.”
Old Coast Guard records are throwing cold water on a long-standing explanation for the loss of the Titanic: the suggestion that the fateful journey took place in waters bristling with icebergs, making 1912 an unlucky year to sail the North Atlantic.
Instead, more than a century of Atlantic iceberg counts reveals 1912 was an average year for dangerous floating ice. The findings also contradict a popular notion that the Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier on Greenland’s west coast birthed the Titanic’s deadly ‘berg. Instead, a computer model suggests that one of the glaciers at Greenland’s southern tip released the iceberg that hit the Titanic on April 14, 1912, drowning more than 1,500 people in the frigid ocean.
“I think the question of whether this was an unusual year has been laid to rest,” said Grant Bigg, an environmental scientist at the University of Sheffield and lead study author, adding, “1912 is not an exceptional year.”
…
According to Bigg, 1912 was a high ice year, but not exceptional compared with the surrounding decades.
In 1912, data shows that 1,038 icebergs moved south from Arctic waters, and crossed the 48th parallel. The Coast Guard records show a slightly higher number of 1,041 icebergs crossed south of 48 degrees north in 1909. Between 1901 and 1920, five years saw at least 700 icebergs drift below 48 degrees north, where they could menace ships.
And, inconveniently according to GISS, it was the third coldest year on record. And, the years following it were still quite cold.
Then there is the fact that radar has been around for about 65 years, though some folks think that ship radar might not help against global warming icebergs. They hide in the deep ocean and then surface right in front of the ships. (Thanks Roy)
Image from the bridge of the Ocean Nova Antarctica Cruise Ship
I keep expecting to hear that hangnails are caused by global warming.
Bloke down the pub
April 28, 2014 6:07 am
It’s hard to know if the Gruniad actually believes a single word of what they publish.
Rick K
April 28, 2014 6:12 am
The Gruniad can kiss my ice…
Jimbo
April 28, 2014 6:16 am
Kate Ravilious goes on to say….
Soberingly, global warming has increased iceberg hazard greatly in recent decades, making years like 1912 more the norm than the exception.
Is she right? Where is the data for this?
The abstract she links to has no abstract to look at.
Anyway, I think I found the full paper, no time to read, have to dash for other duties.
There is a graph showing “Total number of icebergs crossing latitude 48°N” which seems to be trending DOWN since 1985. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.2238/pdf
SMC
April 28, 2014 6:21 am
It would be nice to know if there was something global warming and CO2 weren’t the root cause of.
katarax
April 28, 2014 6:27 am
CAGW: I just can’t quit you.
Tom O
April 28, 2014 6:33 am
“SMC says:
April 28, 2014 at 6:21 am
It would be nice to know if there was something global warming and CO2 weren’t the root cause of.”
Might I suggest, in response to your statement, that possibly the cruxifixion of Christ and the Spanish inquisition “may not” have been caused by global warming and CO2. Then again…
Apparently global warming caused Capt Smith to pay little heed to numerous iceberg warnings from other ships and sail his ship far too fast for prevailing conditions. Yeah, that’s how it happened!!
John Whitman
April 28, 2014 7:05 am
‘The Guardian’is the Titanic.
I am benevolent enough to wish that Dana Nuccitelli survives the sinking of it. Who else is such a silly comical foil for skeptics? OK, Mann is but having two silly comical foils for skeptics is twice as enjoyable.
John
David
April 28, 2014 7:05 am
One thing I know CO2 has done is line the pockets of a bunch of crooks who run around screaming fire in crowded places.
richard
April 28, 2014 7:18 am
They should have rammed the Titanic hard into that iceberg, maybe that would have given them a few extra hrs.
artwest
April 28, 2014 7:20 am
Col Mosby says:
April 28, 2014 at 7:02 am
Apparently global warming caused Capt Smith to pay little heed to numerous iceberg warnings from other ships and sail his ship far too fast for prevailing conditions. Yeah, that’s how it happened!!
——————————————
To be fair, I understand that there is evidence Smith wasn’t doing anything outside of the norms of the time and wasn’t traveling exceptionally fast.
There does seem to have been a bigger problem with lookouts not having binoculars, allied to unusually calm sea conditions which didn’t produce waves against the base of icebergs, thus making them harder to see at the best of times.
Alan Robertson
April 28, 2014 7:21 am
“Yeah, but have a look at what this research actually says and you’ll understand why The Guardian is nothing more than agitprop.”
____________________________
With such luminaries as Dana Nuccitelli managing the Guardian’s comment pages, how can you say such a thing?
(Do I really need a sarc tag?)
There does seem to have been a bigger problem with lookouts not having binoculars, allied to unusually calm sea conditions which didn’t produce waves against the base of icebergs, thus making them harder to see at the best of times.
The binoculars wouldn’t have helped; I’ve stood lookout watches at sea, and we used the naked eye to scan for things. Binoculars can hinder detecting stuff since they narrow your field of view and because they need to be properly focused. I only used the binoculars when I was trying to identify what I was looking at (including the instance when what I thought was a life raft carrying a frantically waving castaway turned out to be a bit of flotsam occupied by three seagulls having a fight over some bit of food).
My understanding was that the cold labrador current impinging on the gulf stream created a layer of cold air under a layer of warm air. This refracted the horizon upwards so the ice berg could not be seen silhouetted against the night sky. It also made the California and Titanic look closer to each other than they were, and distorted their profiles so that the crew of the California were convinced they were looking at a small passenger ship rather than the immense Titanic. Moreover, the refraction layer was unstable, making the lights flicker and twinkle, making it impossible for a viewer to recognize and decipher signal lamp communications.
From what I’ve read, the loss of life was due to poor design and structure of the ship (not enough life boats, for one), with possible crew errors only adding to the tragedy. With the number of icebergs around, the real miracle is that more ships were not lost to them, especially before modern technology made them easier to spot.
The idea that CO2 (plant food) had anything to do with it is, of course, insane.
Jeff Alberts
April 28, 2014 7:49 am
Instead, a computer model suggests that one of the glaciers at Greenland’s southern tip released the iceberg that hit the Titanic on April 14, 1912, drowning more than 1,500 people in the frigid ocean.
So made up data is ok if we agree with it. Right.
Greg
April 28, 2014 7:49 am
“Instead, a computer model suggests that one of the glaciers at Greenland’s southern tip released the iceberg that hit the Titanic on April 14, 1912, drowning more than 1,500 people in the frigid ocean.”
Err, I think it would be more accurate to say the ship “hit” an iceberg rather than the other way around.
It’s a bit like driving down a country lane with no lights and getting “hit by a tree”.
Of course if you want to spin it make it sound like “extreme weather” caused the event you’d have to say the iceberg jumped out and hit the ship.
Also of note was the construction of the ship. Turns out the iron used was more prone to cold embrittlement than expected. Also the ship had a new disign with one big prop in the middle and two small ones each side. Fine for fast crusing (mid-prop direct thrust line) but lousy for emergency turns (can’t run full forward one side, full back the other, as that midline prop doesn’t put in a turning moment…)
So once the berg was spotted, they could not turn away fast enough. And once it was hit, the iron fractured instead of bending.
Then again, it is nice to know that Global Warming was happening in 1912. That means it was not caused by all that coal and oil burned to raise the CO2 level…. so sure “Global Warming” sank the Titanic… I’m OK with that being pushed by the Dark Side….
Political Junkie
April 28, 2014 7:52 am
Some here may not have seen the “Complete list of things caused by global warming” – worth a peek! The Titanic sinking does not seem to appear on the obviously “incomplete list.” http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Louis Hooffstetter
April 28, 2014 8:00 am
From the conclusions of the article, the authors themselves say:
“The Titanic set sail in a year when sea-ice transport and iceberg calving rates were high, but not exceptionally so.”
So only Kate is making the unsupported claim that global warming contributed to the sinking of the Titanic. The Guardian no longer hires reporters. Instead, they hire activists like Kate Ravilious and Dana Nuccitelli who twist research to fit their agendas.
chris moffatt
April 28, 2014 8:15 am
“…released the iceberg that hit the Titanic on April 14, 1912,”
Correction. Titanic hit the iceberg. Under international ColRegs Icebergs have right of way – as any fule kno! The good Colonel Mosby is quite correct; the findings of the Board of Inquiry were that collision occurred due to the speed of the ship being excessive for sea-ice conditions. The iceberg was in way at fault.
Dell from Michigan
April 28, 2014 8:24 am
I have to conclude that the sinking of the Titanic was directly caused by CO2 emissions from burning of coal.
The engines that were making the Titanic travel so fast when its hull was ruptured by the inceberg were coal fired steam engines. Therefore they were emitting CO2. So the sinking of the Titanic was directly related to manmade greenhouse gas emissions from the engines making it go too fast for dangerous iceberg laden ocean travel.
Now where is my 2 million dollars for proving that the sinking of the Titanic was caused by CO2 emissions?
;>P
Jeff Alberts says:
April 28, 2014 at 7:49 am
It should also be noted that the iceberg in the computer model travelled quite a way over Newfoundland itself before sinking the Titanic. It’s worse than we thought.
See Fig 7 in the paper referenced by Jimbo above: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.2238/pdf
Great model – didn’t even model the coastline correctly! The rest of the paper is equally ridiculous; including this quote: However, the iceberg risk to the Titanic is likely to have predominantly developed around 1908, when a moderately warm and wet year over Greenland produced enhanced snow accumulation (Figure 8). We believe that this gradually soaked through cracks in the ice sheet and accumulated around its margins, which probably led to enhanced short-term outlet glacier sliding, with resulting enhanced calving.
Snow fell down the cracks in the Greenland ice sheet and caused enhanced calving 3 years later – no evidence provided.
Neil
April 28, 2014 8:37 am
Of course. Global Warming sunk the Titanic (because of icebergs).
Good to know that poor quality rivets supplied because of time pressures, an issue known at the time of Titanic’s construction, (http://www.materialstoday.com/metals-alloys/news/what-really-sank-the-titanic/) had nothing to do with it.
US Marines: “If the ground doesn’t match the map, the map is wrong”
Climate Scientists: “If reality doesn’t match the models, reality is wrong”.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/features/trend/titanic_sunk_during_average_ic/25555532
And, inconveniently according to GISS, it was the third coldest year on record. And, the years following it were still quite cold.
Then there is the fact that radar has been around for about 65 years, though some folks think that ship radar might not help against global warming icebergs. They hide in the deep ocean and then surface right in front of the ships. (Thanks Roy)
Tim Ball has a well reasoned analysis:
Titanic Anniversary: Unusual Climate + Extreme Ice Conditions = Tragic Accident
==========================