mapa_NorthAmerica
The Washington Post: Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. November 1922

Excerpt:
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

This is an old post from an even older article, perhaps you’ve already seen it. I won’t draw any conclusions, I just thought it might be interesting to revisit. Keep in mind the world population at that time was about one third that of today. You can read the full version here.



  1. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Not that its needed, but always good to be reminded, how difficult (multifactorial) climate science is the linked article is about how everything in the Climate Computer Models could be correct except for one element that throws “predictions” all off==such as here, how wet is the climate/weather going to be? And aerosols were not adequately understood/measured/calculated.

    Allowing for all sorts of mischief, its NOT just one variable that the Model has wrong. Who know how many elements are wrong or not even accounted for???…… who knows?????

    And yet the sea level keeps rising and Magical Thinking does not even propose an alternate reality.

    so it goes………..

    http://nbcnews.com/science/when-it-rains-rising-carbon-emissions-finally-making-world-wetter-6C10486594

    • Guyver says:

      Not that its needed, but always good to be reminded, how difficult (multifactorial) climate science is the linked article is about how everything in the Climate Computer Models could be correct except for one element that throws “predictions” all off==such as here, how wet is the climate/weather going to be? And aerosols were not adequately understood/measured/calculated.

      Could be?!?!?!? Yet you speak with such certainty when you defend the assumptions made in climate computer models as though this is empirical evidence in of itself. Never mind that these models are based off of assumptions and have yet to make any near-term predictions.

      And yet the sea level keeps rising and Magical Thinking does not even propose an alternate reality.

      so it goes………..

      And yet this doesn’t stop you from making another logical fallacy of a hasty conclusion.

  2. MikeN says:

    What you’re not going to post the Wikipedia link that disproves your point?

    Sea level rising at the same rate as the previous century, maybe slower. CO2 having no effect.

    • Guyver says:

      Sea level rising at the same rate as the previous century, maybe slower. CO2 having no effect.

      In Bobo’s world, science experts have reached a consensus that correlation is causation.

      A scientific-minded person needs no other proof. If you cannot accept that, then you most certainly have an ego about yourself. :)

  3. MikeN says:

    http://tinyurl.com/am8my8w

    The Great Green Con

    Money graph is this

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/16/article-2294560-18B8846F000005DC-184_634x427.jpg

    Such certainty of high warming, and it isn’t happening.
    Surely they weren’t exaggerating the threat and extent of global warming to scare the public? Given what we’ve seen, it is more likely that the models and scientists who claim a small amount of warming from CO2 are correct than the Joe Romms who claim major impacts.

  4. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Hey boys—after YEARS of me posting the rising sea levels you have come up with a “new” argument: “Sea level rising at the same rate as the previous century, maybe slower. CO2 having no effect.” ////// My, my, my. Well, lets look at the chart once more before we tar and feather you on the faulty logic:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

    Well, the first chart only goes back to 1870 and at that left edge it appears very flat….but to my untrained eye the chart appears to have one average slope from 1870 to 1930 where there is a break and the average slope increases?

    I wonder which on of our eyeballs is not functioning too good?

    Maybe you picked up this factoid from the written material? If so please copy and paste. Or maybe you got this talking point from an oil based sleaze sheet? If so, please copy and paste and link?

    But for grins, lets say you were correct? That sea level rise is not increasing–its just a steady inexorable rise? That would mean what in your alchemy?

    bwhahahaha–I could compose one theory consistent with your statement===but I wonder if you can?

    Stun and Amaze us?

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Correction: “But for grins, lets say you were correct? That THE RATE OF sea level rise is not increasing–its just a steady inexorable rise? That would mean what in your alchemy?”

      AKA–co2 in the atmosphere put there by humans is only going to kills us at a steady rate and not an increasingly faster rate?

      How anti-science are you nubs willing to expose yourselves as?

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        ….. and just looking at the graph again–appears to be another rate increase around 1990.

        You two are now denying (see the “science denial” part right there?) that co2 is a green house gas.

        dopes you are.

        • Guyver says:

          You two are now denying (see the “science denial” part right there?) that co2 is a green house gas.

          Confusing Cause and Effect combined with Straw Man / Red Herring.

          Of course CO2 is a green house gas. No one has stated otherwise.

          The disagreement is how each of us is coming to conclusions based off of correlation. Water vapor dwarfs all green house gases. In quantifiable numbers, mother nature expels about 30x more CO2 than all of humanity.

          During the Roman times, the Earth was much warmer than it is now.

          People knew back when the Black Plague was going on that cats were the cause of it before they realized it was because the cats were hunting the rats which carried the fleas who were infected with what was likely the Bubonic Plague.

          Is CO2 the cats or the fleas? Your science of popularity claims correlation is causation.

      • Guyver says:

        AKA–co2 in the atmosphere put there by humans is only going to kills us at a steady rate and not an increasingly faster rate?

        How anti-science are you nubs willing to expose yourselves as?

        Sounds like you’re establishing a causal relationship specifically on the gas we all exhale or expel due to our refusal to live in caves.

        Where’s the scientific empirical evidence that additional human CO2 is CAUSING all of the climate change? Computer simulations based off of assumptions?

        Your best “rebuttal” has largely been answers based on one of the following logical fallacies:

        Appeal to Authority
        Appeal to Popularity
        Appeal to Belief / Consequences of Belief
        Confusing Cause and Effect
        Ignoring Common Cause
        Hasty Conclusion
        Straw Man / Red Herring

        Sounds like the more you’re asked to provide scientific answers, the more logical fallacies you try to defecate. :)

    • MikeN says:

      Scientists have been saying that global warming from CO2 started being noticeable in the late 70s. So I take 100 years on that chart and see 6 inches of rise, and the forty years since is 2.5 inches. Yes, you can compare different length periods and find rises and falls. I’m merely taking the point that the scientists like Tamino at Open Mind are declaring is the start of manmade global warming, to separate from high temperatures seen in the 1930s.

      • MikeN says:

        Rate without CO2=rate with CO2.
        Rate with CO2=rate without CO2+effect of CO2.

        Calculate effect of CO2.

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with movie references says:

        How very sloppy, BS, and cherry picking you are.

        You deny the decades long studies of EVERY ORGANIZED GROUP OF QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS and their peer reviewed work and substitute “what some guy said”?

        Silly Hooman.

        • MikeN says:

          The scientists were the ones doing the cherry picking. Starting in the late a970s and declaring that’s when global warming’s effect stared, that you have to look at long term trends. Well 1979-1998 is 19 years, pretty close to 1998-2013. You can actually declare no statistically significant warming going back a bit earlier, so you now have two nearly equal time periods. Back when it seemed safe, they were saying things like you need 17 years of no warming to disprove the models(IPCC Chapter Lead Author Ben Santer). Now they are desperately trying to figure out how to walk that back.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

            Mickey—you really are sounding like a shill. From other posts, you have access to many of the facts about AGW but you post like a High School debate ingenue making basic mistakes…as if valid arguments/analysis don’t exist.

            There is an organized self disciplined peer reviewed BODY of information that has been issuing written reports making predictions. Then there is chaff and noise from all sorts of “other” interests. The anonymous “they” that you repeatedly refer to.

            YOU have NO CREDIBILITY until you name names, quotes, links. Until such time, you are just a dink.

        • Guyver says:

          You deny the decades long studies of EVERY ORGANIZED GROUP OF QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS and their peer reviewed work and substitute “what some guy said”?

          Appeal to authority / popularity.

          There are many in the scientific community who question the claims of your “every organized group of qualified scientists”. Consider it a peer review of sorts. But for whatever reason it’s met with hostility and largely ignored by the mainstream media because it’s not popular.

    • MikeN says:

      Six inches to one foot of sea level rise doesn’t frighten me.
      Even IPCC worst case estimates are pretty low, no Day After Tomorrow, flooding of skyscrapers, to the point where scientists just dropped the claim because they couldn’t make it scary enough, er couldn’t get a confident degree of certainty. They couldn’t get enough people to sign up for ice sheets melting in Greenland and Antarctica, mainly because it is too cold in Antarctica for global warming to melt the ice.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        Jesus you are a dipshit. The rise keeps on going. If “you” are not feard by 6-7 inches, how about feet? Meters? Yards???

        You see, until the co2 is removed instead of added to, the effect just keeps on going. Why should you be afraid of “anything” 100-200 years out? Are you likewise not afraid of impacts by comets 1000 years from now????

        How manly.

        • MikeN says:

          Well if that was the actual possibility, you’d have a point, but the scientists and the facts and your own link to sea level rise chart say otherwise.

          Effect of doubling CO2 by itself is about 1C. Not a big deal.

  5. MikeN says:

    Turns out the IPCC has been declaring not too much sea level rise for some time now.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/new-study-using-grace-data-shows-global-sea-levels-rising-less-than-7-inches-per-century/

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Don’t even need to look. I’ll grant the point. Only 7 inches per century.

      A measure of your care for the hooman race.

      By the way….. a fail on your part.

      • MikeN says:

        Uh oh, before granting the point of 7 inches per century, did you check with the scientific reports if it was within their stated range? Not doing so might make you a skeptic or a denier, and they arrest deniers in Germany. You don’t want to live your life in jail in Germany, do you?

        All that is besides the point, that the sea level rise, which you have said is the validation of scientific claims with regards to CO2, is actually validating skeptic claims that it is not as bad as they say. There are more and more papers being issued saying warming from CO2 will be low, not high, despite the alarmists’ firewall to keep out such papers. They even got one editor to resign for the crime of publishing a reasonable paper.

  6. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Guyver says:
    7/3/2013 at 7:53 am

    You deny the decades long studies of EVERY ORGANIZED GROUP OF QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS and their peer reviewed work and substitute “what some guy said”?

    Appeal to authority / popularity. /////// No Dumbshit its not==except at first blush. The counter THAT YOU USE is appeal to “NO Authority.” Note that the Appeal to Authority analysis does not stop at that claim alone. It continues. It continues on to the validity of that authority. Like Mickey==you make arguments that appeal only to the ignorant. Mine is not an “appeal” to authority but instead is a REFERENCE TO QUALIFIED AUTHORITY. Quite different.

    There are many/// in fact, no, there are not many. Again, this is your appeal to No Authority in about the weakest formulation of it there is. HAW= HAW!!! You don’t limit your own analysis to defects you find, you merely use whatever dumbass comment works at the half sentence level. What a dope!

    in the scientific community who question the claims of your “every organized group of qualified scientists”. Consider it a peer review of sorts. /// No. Its not peer review. Consider your thinking a turd in your pants of sorts.

    But for whatever reason it’s met with hostility and largely ignored by the mainstream media because it’s not popular. /// I only wish that were true. Your BS claims are met with much too much respect as if it were a qualified opposing view==which on the order of Pink Unicorns… it is not.

    • MikeN says:

      Not very valid when they lie to the public.

      The other hide the decline e-mail:

      Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
      to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
      longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
      might expect from La Nina etc.

      Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
      Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
      give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects
      and the recent cold-ish years.

      Mick Kelly

  7. MikeN says:

    > been issuing written reports making predictions.

    And the predictions aren’t panning out, which suggests a reevaluation is in order.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/16/article-2294560-18B8846F000005DC-184_634x427.jpg