Geoff Sherrington writes: National Geographic Magazine had a Global Warming issue in September 2004. New instruments have given new data. By planning now, NatGeo can make a revised issue 10 years later, in September 2014.
The 2014 edition should aim to correct what is now known to be wrong or questionable in the 2004 edition. We can help. Here are some quotes that need attention. The first three have some commentary, as is suggested for the remainder.
1. “The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80% since 1912.” P.14
This might have been correct at the time of writing pre-2004, but by 2008 Ms Shamsa Mwangunga, the minister for Natural Resources and Tourism in Tanzania wrote ”contrary to reports that the ice caps were decreasing owing to effects of global warming, indications were that the snow cover on Africa’s highest mountain were now increasing”. By 2011 we can read “Unfortunately, we made the prediction. I wish we hadn’t,” says Douglas R. Hardy, geoscientist who was among 11 co-authors of the paper in the journal Science that sparked the pessimistic Kilimanjaro forecast. “None of us had much history working on that mountain, and we didn’t understand a lot of the complicated processes on the peak like we do now.” In October 2007 Mr Justice Burton of the UK High Court ruled, for the purpose of teaching, against unqualified use of this passage summarised from the Gore book “An Inconvenient Truth”. Mr Gore’s assertion was that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming – the court heard the scientific consensus that it cannot be established that the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
2. “… researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035.” P.14
This arose from a brochure from India to the World Wide Fund for Nature, not peer reviewed, which eventuated in year 2350 being replaced by 2035 in the IPCC 2007 report – and missed by the peer-review process. The correction process by the IPCC was tortuous and lamentably acrimonious when a single direct statement should have sufficed.
3. “… raising average global sea level between four and eight inches in the past hundred years.” P.19 This estimate was conventional wisdom until the specialist satellite era, when measurement technology improved. As the NOAA figure shows, Jason 1 (data from 2002) and Jason 2 (2009) have complicated the story, with data showing ocean levels falling at times. The Jason instruments were specifically designed for ocean level measurement. More time is needed before the modern estimate of ocean change can be calculated. It is noted that Ocean Heat Content, OHC, a cause of ocean level change, has barely changed since measurements became acceptable through an increase in the number of Argo buoys in year 2002 or so.
Graph is from http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/
And so it goes, as listed below. The following abbreviated quotes from NatGeo 2004 need examination in the light of accumulated knowledge. Note that peer-review, having been repeatedly found wanting in the years before 2012, is not a requirement for commentary, though it can be desirable. In several important ways, such as immediacy, the modern blog world has adequate accurate commentary, to allow suggested revisions or retractions of the quotes below.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1. “The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80% since 1912.” P.14
2. “… researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035.” P.14
3. “… raising average global sea level between four and eight inches in the past hundred years.” P.19
4. “But the recent rate of global sea level rise has departed from the average rate of the past two to three thousand years and is rising much more rapidly – a continuation or acceleration of that trend has the potential to cause striking changes…” P.19
5. “Even relatively small storm surges in the past two decades have overwhelmed the system of dikes, levees and pump stations … upgraded in the 1990s to forestall the Gulf of Mexico’s relentless creep.” P.19
6. “Vulnerable to sea-level rise, Tuvalu, a small country in the South Pacific, has already begun formulating evacuation plans.” P.19
7. “The scenarios are disturbing even in wealthy countries like the Netherlands, with nearly half its landmass already at or below sea level.” P.19
8. “The 20th Century has seen the greatest warming in at least a thousand years, and natural forces can’t account for it all.” P.20
9. “Both greenhouse gases and temperature are expected to continue rising.” P.20
10. “Thick smoke towers over a forest near Fairbanks, one more sign that Alaska is getting hotter…. Computer models predict that CO2-induced warming could eventually raise the incidence of fires by more than a half.” P.25
11. “If the West Antarctic ice sheet were to break up, which scientists consider very unlikely this century, it alone contains enough ice to raise sea level by nearly 20 feet.” P.27
12. “Ocean temperatures are rising in all ocean basins and at much deeper depths than previously thought (NOAA)” P.27
13. “Oceans are important sinks …. and take up about a third of human-generated CO2.” P.28
14. “ … three greenhouse gases … orchestrating an intricate dance between the radiation of heat from Earth back to space (cooling the planet) and the absorption of radiation in the atmosphere (trapping it near the surface and this warming the planet).” P.29
15. (At Barrow) “There are no words, though, to describe how much and how fast the ice is changing.” P.33
16. “Researchers long ago predicted that the most visible impacts from a globally warmer world would occur first at high latitudes: rising air and sea temperatures, earlier snowmelt, later ice freeze-up, reductions in sea ice, thawing permafrost, more erosion, increases in storm intensity. Now, all these impacts have been documented in Alaska.” P.33
17. “The Fleishmann’s glass frog is barely hanging on …. As Earth’s temperatures rise, scientists are exploring climate’s role in a worldwide amphibian decline.” P.34
18. “Alpine plants are edging uphill and beginning to overrun rare species near mountain summits.” P.41
19. “This is the first instance in which humans appear to be accelerating the change, and warming could take place so quickly that species will not have the time to adapt and avoid extinction.” P.41
20. “At some point, as temperatures continue to rise, species will have no more room to run”. P.41
21. “Coral necropolis …. Increasingly the planet’s coral is in hot water, parboiled in periods of calm, sunny weather … In 1998 the world’s coral suffered its worst year on record, which left 16% bleached or dead.” P.41
22. Re: turtle breeding “Storms amplify the trend (to more females) shearing away trees that provide cooling shade to nests on beaches. ‘Severe weather events … really knock the socks off in favour of the females’.” P.47
…………………………………………………….
Fast forward to page 73 because there are enough quotes already, to find –
23. “A warming world will harm some – and benefit others. Home heating costs will likely fall in New England … The prospects are grim for drought-plagued Ethiopian children, who could see rainfall decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years. Widespread poverty and dependence on subsistence agriculture make Africans the most vulnerable to climate change.” P.73.
There are a couple of boxed headers along the way. Two are
24. “IT’S NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM; IT’S AN OBSERVABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT.” P.33.
25. Then “WE’LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF THE ACTUAL CHANGES IN 30 YEARS. BUT IT’S GOING TO BE A VERY DIFFERENT WORLD.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
To the Editor of National Geographic, we are a third of that way to that very different world and many can’t pick the difference yet. Given the possibility that NatGeo 2004 was an enthusiastic issue, we think it would be a good idea to bring out a more measured NatGeo 2014.
Our blog readers are a skilled and diverse. They will prepare and distribute the actuality of the NatGeo 2004 claims as understood in 2012. Please feel free to use these in the re-write, a step which would gain you prestige because scientifically, it is the ethical move.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
NatGeo has apologised for some past errors. The July 2004 edition had some images of hunters with tusks captioned to be from a dead elephant found in the bush. Trouble was, the tusks had numbers on them showing capture several years before in another country. Earlier, there was the apology and subsequent stronger rules when an altered image of the Pyramids of Egypt was printed on the NatGeo cover of Feb 1982. That lead to a statement of NatGeo rules for altered images.
Finally, on photography, we note the dark photograph, double spread a few pages into the 2004 issue captioned “Heating Up …” It used back lighting and a low sun angle to help give water condensate the appearance of particulate smoke, two vastly different entities, going skyward from what seems to be one chimney of 4, plus some out-of-view cooling towers in Ohio. It fails criterion 2 below.
The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) Code of Ethics offers nine ethical standards to member journalists. The basic premises of the NPPA’s nine standards are:
1. Accurately represent subjects
2. Do not be manipulated by staged photos
3. Avoid bias and stereotyping in work; provide complete information and context
4. Show consideration for subjects
5. Avoid influencing the actions of the photographic subject
6. Editing should not give the wrong impression of the subjects in the photograph
7. Do not compensate persons involved in photographs or in getting a photograph
8. Do not accept gifts or other favors from those involved in a photo
9. Do not purposely interfere with the work of other journalists.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
15. (At Barrow) “There are no words, though, to describe how much and how fast the ice is changing.” P.33
Words echoed by the captain of the MV Akademik Shokalskiy.
This is an excellent idea!
One, it gives all the fine thinkers here a chance to rebut the garbage foisted upon us these days in the name of ‘science’ and ‘saving the planet.’
Two, it provides a “one-stop shop” of what was/is being stated in the mainstream media along with a strong dose of reality. As such, it is an excellent reference and teaching tool.
Three, it allows the perspicacious denizens of WUWT to stand up to this folly!
I’d like to see the end result of this be a post at WUWT. If they are shamed by the truth, too bad.
Reminder: The warmists aren’t wrong because it has failed to warm. After all, they could have guessed right. They are wrong because their premise is wrong, that minute charges in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has detectable climate effects. They are also wrong that moderate warming would be bad, especially since we are still in an ice age and the ice sheets are due back. Lastly, they are negligent in not noticing that CO2 was at depletion levels until man started replenishing it.
So Nat Geo were batting 9 swings for 9 misses on the NPPA’s photographic standards.
A couple of mug galah actors pulled the same stunt on their TV ad using the long retired London power Station at Battersea as a backdrop..
They will not admit their propagandizing or even being wrong. Crow is a very unappetizing dish and difficult for one to consider eating it.
Rich,
In sustainability language, consider that a starving man will eat the last Dodo.
It’s hard to admit when you are wrong. Most people don’t do it but instead they come up with a number of rationalizations. I’ve done it. You’ve done it. Natural geographic will do it. It’s only what we humans do. It’s natural. It is in our DNA. It is fully explainable and fully expected.
Climate science will have to face what rationalizations they choose to use. Maybe it will not be one excuse. Maybe it will be 100 hundred.
But then the world will go on. And some other mistake will have to be explained.
Bill Illis,
Yes, it is hard to admit it when you’re wrong. But that is the only way to maintain credibility. The NatGeo editors don’t understand that.
NatGeo has been wrong in every global warming prediction they have made. In that, they are no different from many others in the climate alarmist camp. But that prompts a question:
When one side is always, 100.0% wrong in their alarming predictions, isn’t it time for rational folks to start seriously questioning their competence? And their understanding of how the real world works? Reasonable people do not listen to someone who is always wrong.
That seems to be happening. I’ve noticed that over the past 2 – 3 years, there are a lot more public comments in the mainstream press ridiculing the global warming scare. People used to be concerned. But no more. Climate alarmists can only cry “Wolf!!” so many times, before they’re ignored.
There is no wolf. The ‘carbon’ scare has run it’s course. Those still promoting it are flogging a dead horse, and it isn’t getting up any more, no matter how hard they beat it.
Which prompts another question: at what point will the average believer in the global warming alarm finally change their mind? When the Northwest Passage permanently freezes over? When global ice cover hits an all-time high? When there is 20+ years with no global warming? Will they ever change their minds?
Or are their minds made up, to the point that nothing can convince them otherwise? That’s what we’re beginning to see in a few of the comments. Not very many. But when confirmation bias overcomes all real world observations, those folks become a part of the dwindling number that have given up all objective science, and have fallen back into the comfort of their unalterable CAGW belief system.
“Reasonable people do not listen to someone who is always wrong.”
Someone who is always wrong is a national treasure. Just like a compass that always points south, there is a value in their dependability.
When alarmists make statements that the Artic will be ice free by 2014 or that some island nation will be underwater in a matter of years, or that we will run out of natural resources by 1990 or that hundreds of millions of people will starve to death by 1980 we can rest assured that such predictions, being based on the need to raise everyone’s taxes and increase government control over everyone else’s life style, are 100 percent wrong and will never occur. Such knowledge is always of value.
I wish publications could be like software. Version 2.0 , 3.0, etc, where the goal is ever searching for the truth. Advertisers and/or sponsers with agendas will always seek deception with half truths.
“I wish publications could be like software. Version 2.0 , 3.0, etc, where the goal is ever searching for the truth”.
A reasonable analogy. However, Microsoft has never ‘admitted’ that certain ‘improvements’ to their software have actually been a retrograde step for the end users. For those (like me) who have used Microsoft Word frequently for almost 20-years (since 1995), we knew every shortcut, where easily accessible writing tools were located – in fact we knew how to fully exploit its full word processing ability. Sadly, many experienced users find the current version of their software condescending, restrictive and tediously time consuming to locate ‘hidden’ tools. At least by 2005 they had got rid of that annoying ‘paper clip’ that popped up saying ‘you appear to be writing a letter’!
From the evidence, CAGW scaremongers have been unable to convince sensible people that their dendo-Chinese-fortune-cookie-crystal-ball-gazing-predictions have ever tried to seek the truth. Conversely, the motor industry does admit their mistakes and recall new models with design faults. Maybe NatGeo and the IPCC need to recruit a few car mechanics. Just a thought.
Wow! So many comments. I gave up on National Geographic years ago when it become obvious it was pushing the “agenda”. Never even a glance at it any more.
ALL THOSE PREDICTED EVENTS HAVE OCCURRED!. To prove the existence of such predictions — is to prove that the predictions were fulfilled!
The only way to prove that the predicted events did not occur is to eliminate the predictions. If no record of the predictions exists than the events could not have occurred.
Or more simply:
Prediction = occurrence
No prediction = no occurrence
This is “1984” thinking — and why warmists never mention the failure of their past predictions. And why National Geographic will never publish the article you suggest. You are never wrong if every mistake you ever make is eliminated from memory.
The science is settled therefore mistakes are never made.
” The correction process by the IPCC was tortuous and lamentably acrimonious when a single direct statement should have sufficed”
That appears to be an understatement considering Pachy’s blustering “voodoo science” claim.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/09/ipccs-pachauris-voodo-science-claim-comes-full-circle/
And that Taphonomic is a good example of a Warmist not wanting to admit being wrong. Yet Pachauri was shown to be wrong and had to eat crow. He was actually told about the error by one of their own months before.
Nat Geo is still a good doctor waiting room magazine when you don’t have time or interest to read the words and can just enjoy the pictures.
Thanks Geoff.
I just saw “Lucy” the movie. With 100% of her brain functioning I think she would have all the answers. Just ask Scarlett Johansson (as Lucy)…she knows everything…
Since it was only one year ago when the September of 2013 cover showed the Statue of Liberty being submerged, it is unlikely they would do an about face so quickly. My beloved magazine cares only about theatrical magazine covers to boost newsstand sales these days. http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/NatGeo-Submerged.jpg
RE: 3. “… raising average global sea level between four and eight inches in the past hundred years.” P.19
Typically, NG fails to own up to its part in the glum predictions – that is, the part its own monthly publication plays. It is known that the cumulative weight of its amassed monthly collections in households across the U.S. are sufficient to displace magma from under the earth’s mantle, causing a net subsidance (at least in North America) of upwards of 100 feet per century. And in particular, NG’s multiple and overlapping gift subscriptions are predicted to cause catastophic sea level incursions along the East Coast, earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault, and tremors in the Denver metro area.
For irrefutable proof of these predictins, along with unprecedented calculations, charts and graphs:
Journal of Irreproducible Results
http://www.jir.com/geographic.html
Catastrophic climate change is bad enough; for heaven’s sake, cut back on your National Geographic subscriptions people!
Reblogged this on Combyne's Weblog and commented:
WUWT encouraging National Geographic to correct past inaccuracies.
National Geographic could do a piece on the anthropology of the new climate religion.
So instead of sacrifices to the climate gods, we have taxes to the climate gods, human activities and not the sun at the centre of the universe, and one or another doomsday prediction failing to come to pass like any other doomsday cult, with the dates and manner just shifting to another scenario.
“Despite all those blue coloured Viagra snag-them-in headlines and those easy brain mush articles of kiddie science for the under twelves, Professor X has become Doctor Droopy. The circulation numbers are all still heading south and the readerships, especially the young, are all heading out into those more interesting Mad Max badlands of the science blogosphere.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/the-decline-of-popular-science-journals/
Pointman
It isn’t just Nat Geo who should be held accountable.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the sceptical movement should bring together all those catastrophic failed predictions into one, definitive index of falsified alarmist claims.
It’s virtually an A-Z because their predictions (or ‘projections’) really have been hopelessly wide of the mark on almost every single indicator.
Currently there is not one single voice for sceptics. Lots of superb individual voices – WUWT, Real Science, Climate Audit, Jo Nova, Tim Ball, No Tricks Zone, Dr Roy Spencer and too many others to list, but from time to time it needs co-ordinating into ONE message.
Something to counter the ‘gold-standard’ IPCC. Put individual differences aside an run one lead story across the ‘net. Kill their argument/s with their own official statistics and data.
Then simultaneously roll it out across the entire sceptical blogosphere, demanding answers and explanations from those responsible for the biggest mis-selling scandal of all time.
There’s easily enough evidence. It’s time.
This is a good idea. A single post on all the big sites, re-blogged on the many small sites, all demanding accountability.
The response would likely be a deafening silence. However the general public would understand what that meant.
I gave upon SCIAM about 8 years ago when they published an article claiming that researchers had detected the “first man made global warming CO2 signature” from 8000 years ago. It was from as small tribe of people who first planted rice in the Mekong delta.
It was so ludicrous that haven’t bought an issue since. I have however been banned from the SCIAM website for pointing out that Michael Mann did not actually get a Nobel Prize.
SCIAM is a reality free zone when it comes to Global Warming.
The lesson provided by ‘chicken little’ has to be learned by every generation. Hysterical inflated rhetoric works only for a short time before everyone starts to ignore you.
This post was wishful thinking: the September 2014 issue of NatGeo is out and it contains nothing about climate change. Emperor Nero was found to be more newsworthy.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/table-of-contents
Updates don’t sell and neither do admissions of broader cyclical truths like AMO and solar.
My Grandfather subscribed to Nat Geo since WWI. I quit the subscription several years ago because of these lies.