Yes, not a recent newspaper article, but the page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post, discovered by John Lockwood at the Library of Congress in Washington DC – a reminder that the 1920’s and 1930’s were warm. In fact, 1934 has overtaken 1998 as the warmest US year following a recent data correction, with 1921 coming third.
The global cooling of the 1940’s to 1970’s prompted The Cooling World article in Newsweek on 28th April 1975. This all goes to illustrate how lightweight some sections of the media are. The post 1970’s warming is now well established and the media are much more climate aware, so similar scary headlines are now a weekly occurrance, with the Arctic sea ice featuring prominently. However, the Arctic situation represents regional change, rather than global – there is no equivalent loss of sea ice in the Antarctic. Dust, black carbon, aerosols and Ozone are being implicated in Arctic warming, in addition to greenhouse gases.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi Paul, Nice post, but the first link to the Washington Post article doesn’t seem to be working. I was rather keen to see it.
Try this!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063
Debating science by means of press clippings?
Thanks. Link now fixed.
SJT – the press reporting in cool and warm periods is the ‘hook’ to some science and observations in the latter part of the post.
Paul Biggs – “However, the Arctic situation represents regional change, rather than global – there is no equivalent loss of sea ice in the Antarctic. Dust, black carbon, aerosols and Ozone are being implicated in Arctic warming, in addition to greenhouse gases.”
Really Paul? First up practically all the models predict polar amplification of global warming and it is going even faster that what the models predicted.
Secondly is the dust, carbon black, aerosols etc natural? Remember it is anthropogenic global warming. All these things are from human activity including the lower ozone levels.
Thirdly the Antarctic is sealed off from the rest of the atmosphere by circumpolar winds. In this area the loss of ozone is causing cooling and accounts for the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic.
Finally according to recent measurements with Grace the Antarctic IS still losing mass around the edges.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html
So much wrong in such a short paragraph.
Here we go again, Ender. The Antarctic MUST lose mass at its edges to avoid LOWERING sea levels.
Annual precipitation on top of the Antarctic ice sheet is circa 50mm/year with 200mm at the edges. And as there is minimal evaporation of ice then the only way that this 1000 cubic km of annual deposition can be balanced is by melting at the edges or sub-ice water flows.
Start worrying when the edges stop losing ice because that will mean the next ice age is right on track.
And if Antarctica is shut off from global warming then how can anyone possibly refer to it as “global warming” at all?
See a previous post here on Greenland locals memories of past ice sheet changes.
All of it within the historical range of variation.
By the way, this might be a very good time to review NASA’s work in ‘hindcasting’ the past Arctic Ice coverage. Funny how they didn’t seem to record any inconvenient changes back in the 1920’s?
Ian Mott – “Start worrying when the edges stop losing ice because that will mean the next ice age is right on track.”
What about if the rate of precipitation is less than the melting at the edges which seems to be the case at the moment. Subsurface flows can accelerate the ice loss at the margins which is what is also happening in Greenland. The GRACE measurement, albeit for only a very brief time, are showing exactly this.
“And if Antarctica is shut off from global warming then how can anyone possibly refer to it as “global warming” at all?”
Please correct me if I am wrong however Antarctica was not the globe last time I looked. Also while the atmosphere is largely shut off the ocean currents carry still carry heat.
“All of it within the historical range of variation.”
Until of course it exceeds it which is what will happen quite soon. What will be the mantra then Ian?
Speaking of historical events looks like AGW is back on track. Record temperatures in Japan.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20298974/
Ender – my statement, “However, the Arctic situation represents regional change, rather than global – there is no equivalent loss of sea ice in the Antarctic. Dust, black carbon, aerosols and Ozone are being implicated in Arctic warming, in addition to greenhouse gases” is correct.
Paul Biggs – “However, the Arctic situation represents regional change, rather than global – there is no equivalent loss of sea ice in the Antarctic.”
Not really as the Arctic accelerated warming is the predicted polar amplification of global warming not a regional effect. Also the warming that we are currently experiencing is anthropogenic. The second part of your statement says to me that dust, carbon black, etc are not part of AGW and you are trying to say that AGW is solely greenhouse warming.
So now Ender equates his mere “expectation” of a future departure from the historical norm as being of equal value to the actual facts of NO Departure from the norm.
And there he goes with the conjecture as fact, again, with his, “What about if the rate of precipitation is less than the melting at the edges which seems to be the case at the moment.”
That is a huge IF and a very pregnant “seems to be the case”. The simple facts are that very few, if any, of the reports on Antarctic ice melt ever do us the simple courtesy of even mentioning the fact that massive melting at the edges is required to maintain equilibrium.
And then he caps it off with the absurd claim that I was suggesting that Antarctica was a synonym for the globe. Nice try for someone stranded in a very dry intellectual creek bed.
And then Luke chimes in with the old slapstick about a record heat wave in Japan. Now surely someone of Luke’s obvious intellectual weight wouldn’t dream of extrapolating from a single anecdote after spending weeks claiming that the absence of warming for almost a decade since 1998 was not evidence of a break in the warming trend?
You guys are all over the shop. Clutching at any straw to prop up your prejudices.
He swung at it. Hehehehehe. Sucker.
Anyway Ian – just remember 10 years down the track – we’ll look back on these discussions.
Here’s another point for the linear regression
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/17/arctic.ice.reut/index.html
August 17, 2007
Arctic sea ice expected to hit record low
NEW YORK (Reuters) — The extent of Arctic sea ice will likely have melted to a record low this September partially due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions, researchers at the University of Colorado said on Thursday.
There is a 92 percent chance that Arctic sea ice extent in September will melt to its lowest level at least since the 1970s, when satellite measuring efforts began, the researchers said.
They had predicted a 33 percent chance of a record low in April, but changed the forecast after a rapid disintegration of sea ice during July.
Such high levels of ice melting could have wide implications in coming years such as changes in temperature and rain patterns across much of the United States.
Ian Mott – “The simple facts are that very few, if any, of the reports on Antarctic ice melt ever do us the simple courtesy of even mentioning the fact that massive melting at the edges is required to maintain equilibrium.”
Whaaaat?? Who said that the Antarctic has to be in equilibrium? I passed this by before however what makes you think that the ice is in equilibrium?
“And then he caps it off with the absurd claim that I was suggesting that Antarctica was a synonym for the globe. Nice try for someone stranded in a very dry intellectual creek bed.”
No I suggested no such thing. What I said that the Antarctic despite being very large is not the globe so therefore warming without Antarctica can still be termed global warming. I may be down a dry intellectual creek bed however at least I still have a paddle, unlike yourself.
Ender – the climate has marked regional differences, now as in the past. I listed some of the contributory factors implicated in Arctic warming in addition to ghg’s, without attribution.
Climate change is a more appropriate term than ‘global warming.’
So is that a prediction for September or just a scenario, Luke? First we have the definitive heading, “Arctic sea ice expected to hit record low”. But this is followed by the wimp-out qualification, “Arctic sea ice extent in September will melt to its lowest level AT LEAST SINCE THE 1970s, (my emphasis) when satellite measuring efforts began, the researchers said.”
The actual content of the news item is that these turkeys have changed their prediction. This is not news, and certainly is not news in mid-August.
These are the same people who filled in the past gaps with anecdotal data that failed to match the 1930-1950 warming period and, more importantly, failed to explain why this was so.
The usual for Luke, speculation substituting for fact.
Ender, my statement about Antarctic equilibrium was made in a context of widespread statements suggesting Antarctic disequilibrium in the form of excessive melting and rising sea levels. Nice try, but most readers would have comprehended that my reference was to the current norm.
And most readers will also understand that a supposedly global situation that leaves out an influence as massive as Antarctica cannot, seriously, be described as “global” at all. That is a long way from your little attempt at casuistry.
Paul Biggs – “Climate change is a more appropriate term than ‘global warming.'”
Actually this is showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole thing. Anthropogenic global warming refers to human activities such as burning fossil fuels releasing CO2 and aerosols and land clearing for agriculture are leading to a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and changing weather and rainfall patterns.
This activity will possibly lead to some degree of climate change. They are two connected but seperate issues. As you are at pains to point out climate change has happened before however the thing that has no precendent is human activity.
As I said before to suggest that the two things are the same is just plain wrong.
Ian Mott – “Ender, my statement about Antarctic equilibrium was made in a context of widespread statements suggesting Antarctic disequilibrium in the form of excessive melting and rising sea levels. Nice try, but most readers would have comprehended that my reference was to the current norm.”
Yes but there are instruments in orbit that are now suggesting to us that it is not in equilibrium anymore and that melting at the margins is increasing. Although the Antarctic is walled off with wind no such thing walls off the sea and higher sea temperatures can melt more ice. The Antarctic is connected by the sea. The Antarctic is a massive influence and it is not completely removed from global warming only the atmosphere which is more influenced by the loss of ozone, itself a powerful greenhouse gas.
So global warming is global.
No, Ender, the instruments are merely identifying those parts of the Antarctic that would normally be producing a decline in mass. They are unlikely to be able to identify the increases in mass over the main ice sheet because they are measuring 50mm of deposition on a 3000m thick body of ice.
That would require a sensitivity to detect a 0.00166 of 1% annual change in ice mass which is a big ask. They cannot do it so they only report the entirely natural declines in density at the margins. And the purple press go nuts over it. Big deal.
He swung again. Giggle. But be hopeful the prediction doesn’t come true, as given you’re all excited about 0.02 C difference between 1998 and 1934 we’ll back pushing it under your nose as of big importance on your criteria.
Well Ian I don’t know about global – given the mid-troposphere above Antarctica is warming more than anywhere else on Earth and given we have significant changes in polar circulation I think we can indeed make the “global claim”. Golly you’re getting soft – what a pushover. ROTFL.
P.S. In terms of your 50 mm – entire supposition – no references = no credibility I’m afraid. Unless you’ve personally ground truthed it.
Seems to me Luke, Ender et al. are engaged in “proof by ridicule” or the equally juvenile tit-for-tat game of proof by exhaustion.
Hello again
The pack ice returning to Iceland might be interesting for you.
Thickest ever seen by locals.
OK Mottsa – well we’re back quicker than you think with some Mottsian envelope and albedo theory busting news.
Total area of sea ice in Arctic Ocean smallest
since observations started
– Much faster pace of ice melting than forecasted –
August 16, 2007 (JST)
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC)
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)
Overview
The Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC, led by President Yasuhiro Kato) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA, led by President Keiji Tachikawa) cooperatively analyzed oceanic and atmospheric observation data and sea ice data acquired by satellites, and found that the sea ice area in the Arctic Ocean has been decreasing at a much faster pace than expected compared to the previous worst record in the summer of 2005. After satellite observations started in 1978, the observed area shrunk to its lowest level on August 15, 2007. Ice melting normally continues until mid September, thus further shrinkage of the sea ice area is expected. The observed phenomenon significantly exceeded the forecasted model submitted in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fourth Assessment Report, and the big difference tells us that the model may not precisely reflect the actual situation in the Arctic Ocean.
Contents
The following are findings as a result of analyses of observation data acquired by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E)*1. The AMSR-E acquires observation data and visible images of sea ice density.
Since July, the smallest record of sea ice area in the Arctic Ocean has been broken every day.
Since the beginning of August, the shrinkage of sea ice has been accelerated by a low pressure system generated and lingering off Siberia.
On August 15, the total sea ice area in the Arctic Ocean reached a new low.
If this pace of melting continues, the sea ice area reduction pace may significantly exceed the IPCC forecast, and it may actually reach the forecasted values for 2040 to 2050 (Figure 2 and 3.)
Estimated causes
The following are estimated causes of accelerated sea ice reduction this year as a result of the comprehensive analysis of the observation data acquired by JAMSTEC including observation data by ships, continued observation by drifting buoys (JCAD, POPS*2) and atmospherics data. (Please refer to Figure 4)
Sea ice reduction has been observed not only along the coast of Alaska but also along the Arctic Ocean shore of Canada this year. Accordingly, the impact of friction from coastal areas is smaller than usual thus sea ice tends to move in a large scale. Therefore, fragile and easy-to-melt ice that has just formed in coastal areas moves over a north latitude of 80 degrees and spreads into the Arctic Ocean.
As the fragile ice spreading into the Arctic Ocean melted quickly and that facilitates the ocean water to absorb more sunshine, ocean warming and sea ice melting have accelerated.
More sea ice has been drifting toward the Atlantic Ocean from the Arctic Ocean, thus the volume of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been decreasing.
You can find the latest image of sea ice density in the Arctic Ocean and past observation images on the website of the International Arctic Research Center (IARC, Alaska Fairbanks.) The image data is updated using the IARC-JAXA information system (IJIS), which JAXA places at the IARC.
(URL:http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e)
More detail including imagery and graphs at:
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/08/20070816_arctic_e.html
Just a small hint Luke, “lowest since 1978”. This is a thread about reports of melting ice in the 1920s, remember?
So repetition of this current satellite data will not provide any information on the scale of past movements. And given the faults in the temperature records then there is every possibility that past ice coverage matched the temperature record.
And there is nothing in your reference about cloud substitution to counter ice albedo changes.
You just cant avoid extrapolating from limited data sets, can you?
You gotta 1920s map ? We’ve been over the clouds before.
And did I say it was worse. It’s just that according your envelope it’s not happening ! Just another point in that linear regression.
And remember greenhouse warming is just getting started.
No Luke, I have never said it was not happening. What I have said repeatedly is that it is only happening within the historical range of variation. Greenhouse warming may well be “just getting started” but at this stage we can state categorically that after a 40% increase in CO2 levels over more than a century, we still have not entered uncharted waters.
Well you have globally speaking IMO if you add it all up.
So you want to suspend all other variables like internal variability, volcanoes and solar input. You’ll just have to wait around for a while longer won’t you. A vengeful God won’t give it to you this easily? But that’s OK – you’re not convinced – can handle that with no umbrage.