Time magazine: Northwest Passage navigable
On September 13th, Time magazine (click) informed their readers that “Northwest Passage’s navigability was dramatically demonstrated”.
Two ships coming from the opposite directions met and astonished Eskimo cheers from both crews echoed through the rock-bound channel.
The only problem is that it was not September 13th, 2008 but September 13th, 1937.
Well, it shouldn’t be too shocking because the current Arctic temperature is pretty much what it was in the late 1930s.
This entire post shamelessly copied from Lubos Motl, because it is so bloody good and I know that he won’t mind.
Cheers Comrades
Cue PKD
Filed under: Carbon Trading, Cute, Global Warming, God bothering, Living with Nature, World Events | Tagged: Luboš Motl
Cue PKD
Ooh, ooh, a sting! My bluff has been called!!!
Well, sorry, but your too slow this time Iain old boy – guess age IS catching up on you, huh?
Cause Halfwise’s knee jerked far more quickly than yours on this occaision – see link below.
I’ve pretty much already picked the fallacy of this absurd argument apart over there, but hey, feel free to go and help him out Iain – his silence is currently deafening!!!!
…and here is the link…
http://halfwisehalfwit.blogspot.com/2008/09/sept-13-northwest-passage-open.html
Cheerio!
PKD
.
The Voyage of the St. Roch
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,801448,00.html?promoid=googlep
The Southern route of the NW Passage was travelled every year by the HBC(Hudson Bay Company) in the 30’s. The Aklavik was by no means an icebreaker. A 30HP icebreaker? That is idiotic.
Gjoa Haven(1930) and Cambridge Bay(1929) pictures showing low ice level. A lot more info in that link.
http://www.kitikmeotheritage.ca/Angulalk/hudsons/hudsons.htm
This little boat the Aklavik also made it through the NW Passage in 1937.
http://iain-cameron.blogspot.com/2007/07/test.html
Nascopie and Aklavik meet from East and West in 1937
The Nascopie commonly travelled through the passage in the 30’s.
http://iain-cameron.blogspot.com/2007/07/aberdonians-arctic-feat.html
In 1944 Larsen took the St. Roch from Halifax to Vancouver in 86 days through the Parry Channel route.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions
The Arctic travelled the Parry channel route twice and could have travelled right out of the ice free McClure strait. This from 1908 to 1911.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/icebreakers/cgs-arctic
W.E. Parry travelled the length of the Parry Channel route and back in the early 1800’s and McClure sailed right into the McClure strait from the East around 1850.
Then there is Amundsen and a lot more evidence.
This evidence is ignored by science, and it shows the conditions in the Arctic in the thirties were similar to today. And then in the late 40’s the Arctic froze up and the HBC shut some of their posts due to the increased ice.
What is called science has become an embarassment.
I think that Shawn has you nailed here PKD and the whole current ice levels are a 1200 year low claim as well
Welcome to my blog Shawn and thanks for the links!!
Aaah Iain, Shawn’s minute list of ice breakers and scientific expeditions actually *proves* the point I made over at Halfs. The only thing he’s nailed is the validity of my own argument!
Feel free to go and read the rebuttal over there.
Iain
A small ship, fitted with plating on it’s bow (aka ice-breaker) made it through a small strait (about 60km long) in 1937 in summer.
Today? A nice fibreglass – but fragile – 6 berth Med. style cruiser can make it from one side of Canada to the other in about the same time as it takes to go from Plymouth to the Bahamas (3 weeks approx).
These two conditions are not the same at all.
JM
this is an Ice breaker the ship referred to in the 1937 piece certainly was NOT one by any definition. it was a small coastal trader that had some protective plating added to its bow fro Arctic service.
“it was a small coastal trader that had some protective plating added”
Ok, I won’t quibble about that.
But my point about fibreglass remains. It is very fragile against impact, and no fibreglass ship (had they existed) could have navigated the NW passage in 1937. They can now.
Even “small coastal traders” required “some protective plating”
Point made I think.
Oh, and you may have missed the point about the difference between the Bellot Strait and the whole NW Passage. The Bellot Strait is simply a small leg of the passage, which melts in summer (more now than then) and not the whole thing. That’s why this story from Time is about a “small coastal trader” and not something more substantial like a steamer.
Show me coastal trade the whole distance from east to west (and vice versa) during the 1930’s and I’ll concede your point. (And no, it doesn’t have to be year round, summer will do fine)
JM
Fibreglass boats are actually far less fragile than boats made of wood and I would expect that given the ability of modern mariners to know what lies ahead with radar remotes satellite imagery ect the master of such a small ship would be more confident that he knew what he may face than any one in 1937 so he would be more willing to attempt routes in an unsuitable boat than a captain in 1937. and in the absence of the surety of a route being navigable any sensible operator of a ship in Arctic waters would make some sensible modifications to their boats to suit the conditions.
“Fibreglass boats are actually far less fragile than boats made of wood ”
LOL. Not against ice they’re not. Ice is like iron if you hit it.
Let’s put this to bed. Look up “Fort Ross, Canada” on google maps, then zoom out until the scale hits about 10km.
Bellot Strait is the narrow strait to the east of Fort Ross, my mistake it’s actually only about 5km long not 60.
It’s a tiny *part* of the NW Passage, not the whole thing, which you can see when you zoom out to a scale of about 500km.
So this whole “the NW Passage was open in 1937″ meme is false. It wasn’t:
1. You needed steel reinforcement on your boats
2. The stories (such as in Time) relate only to a small passage not the whole thing
Now if you want to prove me wrong, show me “coastal trade the whole distance from east to west ”
Didn’t happen. People are pretty keen to make money and if it were possible I’m sure they would have. They didn’t.
Contrast with the current situation where Canada, Russia and the US are all contending to lay claim to exploration rights in the Arctic, and the Pentagon now is actively planning to assert military power over the region.
JM
Note this foot note from the 1937 time article
and i think the point is clearly that the one choke point that prevented navigation was this section that that article talks about thus your contention that this is insignificant is not correct.
Iain
“more open but colder waters.” does not assist your viewpoint as it refers to the other side of the Arctic.
And you comment re. “choke point” is nothing more than supposition on your part. You may not be aware but the seasonal movement/formation of ice in the Arctic means (has meant) that the western part has mostly remained frozen while the eastern part thaws each summer (there’s a nice little animation of sattelite photos over the years that shows this somewhere on the web but I can’t find it just now). ie. it *is* remarkable that the NW passage is now open. It has not been before.
From the wikipedia article on this (2nd para) “it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906.” In other words it took Amundsen 3 years to get through, ie. not commercially viable.
Also from the same article (under the heading Overview, 2nd para) ” There are five to seven routes through the archipelago, including the McClure Strait, Dease Strait, and the Prince of Wales Strait, but not all of them are suitable for larger ships.”
Note Bellot Strait is not mentioned – that’s because it is very narrow and is not a choke point but simply one of the less significant places that form part of a small boats passage.
We are now in a situation where commercial development and shipping across the whole region is possible for the first time in recorded history, not just some minor local route by one company for a few short years.
JM
Note this foot note from the 1937 time article
Now Russia currently operates 160 freighters on summer schedules in the North-east Passage’s more open but colder waters.
and i think the point is clearly that the one choke point that prevented navigation was this section that that article talks about thus your contention that this is insignificant is not correct.
Oh good grief. Iain that foot note is about the *NW* passge over Canada, not the NE passage! Which is precisely why it occupied only the foot-note.
Look – here’s a little picture to help you out.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44118000/gif/_44118243_arctic_203_passage.gif
Do try to stick to the right passage, and try to refrain from speaking out the back passage!!!
Seriously, JM is making the same point I have been trying to make…
30’s – lots of ice, very dangerous, and only possible with an ice-breaker and lots of luck by a few hardy expeditions.
Now – Very little ice, being proposed for commercial merchant shipping to pass through regularly.
Claiming that a few ice-breakers made it through in the 30’s equates to todays conditions is just making you look ridiculous….
Hah! – slight correction…
Iain that foot note is about the *NE* passge over Russia, not the NW passage! Which is precisely why it occupied only the foot-note.
That’s what I get for posting at 10.30 at night – my eyes are going funny!!!
Henry Larsen took the St. Roch from Halifax to 86 days in 1944. And did some sight seeing along the way.
The journey is recorded in his biography the, ‘Big Ship’. Larsen piloted the St. Roch around the Arctic for some 20 tears and kept a full set of logs. He was not fighting massive amounts of ice although some years were worse than others.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions
What do you guys think, the Aklavik got to Cambridge Bay by helicopter?
The boats that supplied the HBC(Hudson Bay company) regularly travelled up and down the passage to supply the posts. The Aklavik made many trips out of the passage to the East and then to Gjoa Haven. You guys do know that Gjoa Haven is were Amundsen Wintered in the Arctic? It is another myth Amundsen was stuck in the Arctic ice for 2 years. He stayed to do scientific work and find the magnetic North pole. Such ignorance repeated over and over!
Each and every Summer Gjoa Haven and Cambridge Bay and many more outposts were resupplied by boat. And it wasn’t pleasure cruising like today. These boats went back and forth up and down the NW Passage. And every year there were boats that came up from Vancouver and supplied the posts. The Nascopie many times came in from the East to supply the posts and the Mounties.
“Canalaska started a trading post at Gjoa Haven in 1927.”
http://www.kitikmeotheritage.ca/Angulalk/hudsons/hudsons.htm
i don’t think you guys have the actual knowledge but just like to spout your AGW religion. Better if you read the link first before spouting.
Besides with the PDO and La Nina in cool phases and the lack of sunspots the Arctic is going to freeze up solid.
Here is a map so you may undestand were these places like Gjoa Haven and Cambridge Bay are located.
http://www.canada-maps.org/northwest-territories/images/northwest-territories-map.gif
Quote JM
“Bellot Strait is the narrow strait to the east of Fort Ross, my mistake it’s actually only about 5km long not 60.
2. The stories (such as in Time) relate only to a small passage not the whole thing”
What do you think, the boat just went through the Bellot straight and stayed there after a helicopter flew it in? HAHA
The truth is the Bellot Strait was first known to be crossed by boat, by M’Clintlock in the 1850’s.
And don’t forget Amundsen not only crossed the NW Passage but also crossed the Northeast passage in the early 1900’s, Which makes you wonder if this is the first time the passages have been open like the AGW alarmist are telling us? The Earth is now cooling, get used to it.
Quote PKD
“Look – here’s a little picture to help you out.’
That NW Passage route you posted is blocked this year except to icebreakers. I am starting to doubt you have any actual knowledge of the subject.
“Unlike last year, this year saw the opening of the Northern Sea Route, the passage through the Arctic Ocean along the coast of Siberia. However, while the shallow Amundsen’s Northwest Passage opened in both years, the deeper Parry’s Channel of the Northwest Passage did not quite open in 2008.”
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
That NW Passage route you posted is blocked this year except to icebreakers.
Wow – you managed to contradict yourself Shawn, first saying the NW passage was blocked…
However, while the shallow Amundsen’s Northwest Passage opened *in both years*
…and then pointing out that the NW passage was open. Yep, one could navigate the NW passage though Amundsen’s route. Well done you just refuted your own argument for me!!!
Oh, and for my part…
I am starting to doubt you have any actual knowledge of the subject.
…I wondered *from the start* whether you had any actual knowledge on the subject. Your post confirms you probably don’t, but I’ll keep an open mind for a bit longer…
PKD,
The picture you posted points out the Northern route or as it is called the Parry Channel Route of the Northwest Passage. This route is blocked in 2008. That picture does not mark the Amundsen route. My guess is you do not even know the difference.
And why do they call it the Parry Channel route? Because W. E. Parry travelled the length of the Channel in 1919-20 all, the way to Banks Island with a sail powered boat!
Read this and you will see that many boats travelled the Northern route.
http://pwnhc.learnnet.nt.ca/exhibits/nv/kellet.htm
The Southern or Amundsen Route was basically an open waterway in the Summers of the 30’s for the boats supplying the HBC.
There are full logs of these travels. What they call science chooses to ignore this historical info since it doesn’t fit the Earth is gonna burn up theory.
This year there is a reduced level of Sun spots(none), a cooling PDO and a cooling LaNina.The Arctic is gonna be a big ice rink next Summer.
Correction
W.E. Parry travelled the length of the NW Passage Northern Route in 1819-20.
Shawn – I know full well where the Parry Channel is, and that the Amundsen route skirts closer to the main land / is the more southerly of the routes.
BTW the picture I referred to was simply provided to illustrate to Iain the difference between NE and NW passages. At no point did I state that the specific NW route shown in the picture (Parry route) was open – because this year only the Amundsen route was. You’ve just jumped to that assumption all on your own. Feel free to jump back out!
As for next years ice levels, sorry but I don’t think they’ll be any more than +/- 10% of this years – let alone the 30 or so % needed to return to the * climatic average*. But I’ll certainly be more than happy if it does return to even the average…
Scotty gall travelling all ober the Southern Route.
See the picture of the Canalaska in ‘29 at Cambridge bay. Were is this ice PKD knows was there? Looks like easy sailing.
http://www.kitikmeotheritage.ca/Angulalk/hudsons/scottyg/scotty.htm
Yeeeeeesssss – very scientific of you Shawn. Well thank god, that grainy black and white photo disproves everything. Nothing to worry about folks; Shawn’s unearthed definitive irrefutable proof that ice levels for the Arctic in 1929 were at least as bad as they are know! Phew!!!
Seriously, Shawn, you’re sounding like Erik the Red promising all the folks back home that, if they come with him they’ll get to this amazing ‘Green’ land!!!! If only Erik had a grainy b&w photo of that quality, doubtless he’d of convinced the rest of the VIkings to go too!!!
Rgrds,
PKD
.
PS – Oh, thanks for retracting your claim that I had somehow stated the Parry channel route was open simply by trying to be helpful and put a link to a map up. Much appreciated!!!
BTB Shawn – I liked the 2nd photo of Cambridge Bay underneath the one you got so excited about – Scotty Gall head deep in snow standing in front of a house 2/3rds buried in snow!!!
Not that the poves or disproves anything – but then I like my evidencea bit more rigorous and comprehensive than a grainy b&w photo!
* Lol! – bad typos – god is that the time – off to bed!!!*
Not that that proves or disproves anything – but then I like my evidence a bit more rigorous and comprehensive than a grainy b&w photo!
Quote PKD
“PS – Oh, thanks for retracting your claim that I had somehow stated the Parry channel route was open simply by trying to be helpful and put a link to a map up. Much appreciated!!!”
Where did I say that?
I don’t believe you knew what the Parry Channel route was until I told you.
PKD
“BTB Shawn – I liked the 2nd photo of Cambridge Bay underneath the one you got so excited about – Scotty Gall head deep in snow standing in front of a house 2/3rds buried in snow!!!”
My coffe went rhough my nose. That is funny!
Imagine that, snow in the Arctic in the winter! Now PKD has proved the theory of AGW with his discovery of snow in the Arctic in the Winter.
Quote PKD
“Not that that proves or disproves anything – but then I like my evidence a bit more rigorous and comprehensive than a grainy b&w photo!”
I am curious as to what your evidence is? I have seen nothing.
You would be better to read and learn than try to defend Globaloney Warming. Notice that Scotty easily delivered supplies all over the Southern Route. Through solid ice pre AGW? Like a pleasure cruise. HAHA
“Scotty Gall was given the command of the Emma Jane in 1926. He was charged with delivering coal and deerskins (caribou skins) to the post at King William Land (Island). He first helped to establish new posts at Ellice River and Perry River before carrying on the HBC Post at King William Island. The King William Island post was initially located at Simpson Strait (Malirualik), before it was moved to Gjoa Haven in 1927.”
“On the way back from Simpson Strait Gall stopped in at Perry River again and then went on to the Kent Peninsula post. He spent the next year based out of Kent Peninsula and visiting and provisioning the posts in the region – including the Perry River post – with the schooner Fox. “
Imagine that, snow in the Arctic in the winter!
Yet you were the one offering an some ‘ice free’ picture of Cambridge Bay as proof that the conditions weren’t that bad. So you’ve contradicted yourself *yet* again.
I don’t believe you knew what the Parry Channel route was until I told you.
Well I’m happy to point out your complete error on that part!
But hey, keep ‘believing’ – but isn’t that what you GW denialists keep criticising GW supporters for???
And as for your last quotation from your religious scripture all I do is *yawn*.
I mean yet again Shawn, you seem to be putting forward purely anecdotal evidence as some sort of definitive proof. Sorry but I like the kind of climatic average proof as put forward by NSIDC, a group you yourself have linked to in this very thread. Of course if you have irrefutable climatic proof that the ice extent was as low back in the 30’s as now then stop yakking and put it forward.
Otherwise, please stop with the boring and pointless anecdotes that prove or disprove nothing. And given you seem to rely on anecdotes as your preferred standard of evidence, your argument really is getting quite pathetic right now.
Rgrds,
PKD
.
Please provide this NSIDC climate proof about ice conditions in the Arctic in the 30’s. I am very interested in seeing this.
Science has decided the History of the world is anecdotal evidence and they can better reconstruct history with their computers.
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3
“If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death.”
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3
Aaaah I see – so now this AGW thing is all some Orwellian Big Brother conspiracy aimed at people control.
“M’lud – the prosecution rests it’s case. The defendant has demonstrated his denialism, littered with self-contradictions, a lack of providing any real evidence other than amusing anecdotes – and now topped off with a hint of Orwellian-type conspiracy theory.”
*bang bang*
Yes agreed, guilty as charged – take him down. Next defendant please….
Seriously Iain – where do you get these nutters from? Is there any decent sceptics out there was can actually debate on the science, not anecdotes, religions and conspiracy theories???
I’m sure there must be some out there, but they all seem to be avoiding this site for some reason….
And still you have not provided one bit of evidence as you resort to insults.
Of course this is because you have no evidence and have no other way to defend your position.
NW Passage all froze up.
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/nwp/nwp07.png
And still you have not provided one bit of evidence as you resort to insults.
Thats because you were asked for NSIDC climate proof beforehand to provide evidence not anecdotes. I suspect that as you know you dont have any you simply resorted to trying to reverse the onus and start asking the NSIDC evidence that the climate was greater. Nice try, but it doesn’t work that way, so last chance Shawn – wheres your proof?
And that MS paint picture you just provided doesn’t mean anything either on its own, it’s not much better than your b&w photo to be honest.
Finally, ‘nutter’ is one of Englands mildest terms often used in an endearing way. And given your lack of evidence, self-contradictions and now lovely conspiracy theories I think its rather apt so I stand by it. If it really bothers you (you are American I take it?) that much I could simply stick to ideological denialist if you prefer….:)
No I am a Canadian. I take it you’re French?
Still not one bit of evidence to contradict what is a huge wealth of historical factual information. I really am curious what secret evidence you base your great knowledge on.
Give me some evidence from anywhere. Anything? Do you just come up with your beliefs out of thin hot air? Insulting the other debater is not looked on as proof in Canada. Maybe that is the French way?
Here is more from my side to match your…. well actually you have provided not one tiny bit of proof.
“Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005″
“The Greenland warming of the 1995-2005 period is similar to the warming of 1920-1930, although the rate of temperature increase was by about 50% higher during the 1920-1930 warming period.”
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html
Quote PKD
“lovely conspiracy theories ”
Now George Orwell is a conspiracy theory? You have never heard of George Orwell or the book ‘1984′. You are a naive little Frenchman.
“We seem to be running in roughly forty year cycles of warming and cooling – within a longer term warm period. This century has been marked by a warming period (1910-1940) followed by a cooler period through to the 1970s. The latest warming trend began in the late 70s, early 80s. ‘
http://www.polarbearalley.com/hudson-bay-post-climate-change.html
No I am a Canadian. I take it you’re French?
I asked if you were from the American continent, not whether you are a yank from the USA part (and I actually prefer Canada over the US any day). So yes you are indeed American; North American to be more precise, and Canadian (congratulations BTW) to be more precise.
Although I can understand why you’d think I was referring to the USA part – Canadians do seem to have a bit of an unneccessary inferiority complex on that one.
And no I am not French – when was the last time you heard a Frenchmen use the word nutter????
Yes of course I’ve heard of 1984 and Orwell – and the only reason I can think of why you would possible quote it in this context is if you think AGW is some sort of massive conspiracy theory.
I mean why else would you quote ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”.
Explanation on a postcard please…?
BTW in termsof evidence its quite simple, NSIDC themselves have stated that the current melting and low ice extent levels are unparalleled in our history. If you have definitive evidence that they are lying or mistaken, you’ve yet to produce it.
I mean Shawn, just think of the name you’d make for yourself if you actually managed to scientifically disprove that claim. You’d be FAMOUS man! But at the moment all you’ve done is trot out anecdotes and one paper that probably hasn’t been peer-reviewed and endorsed by the rest of the scientific community – and even if it has it doesn’t remotely prove that ice extent in the 30’s was as low as it is now.
So – your proof is???
Oh, before I forget…NSIDC data on ice levels in the 30’s
http://nsidc.org/research/projects/Barry_Eurasian_Arctic.html
Which is based on data collated from 211 stations. In half the regions, including the region with 30’s data (E. Arctic) the recent decline in ice levels is clearly observed. Clearly, the E. Arctic region is in worse shap now than it was in the 30’s.
It’s a far better standard of evidence than anything you’ve provided so far….
Quote PKD
“And no I am not French – when was the last time you heard a Frenchmen use the word nutter???? ”
When they were talking about the English that believed George Orwell was a conspiracy theory. Stalin thought George was a conspiracy against communism. Sounds like you lean more towards the beliefs of Stalin.
They say the Arctic was warming right in the report you linked to. Proves my point it was warmer in the Arctic in the 30’s and 40’s.
“The 1930s to 1940s saw significant high latitude warming ”
And if you actually look at the graphs you have provided most don’t go back to the 30’s and the graphs show less or equal ice in the 40’s as compared to today with a greater area in the 50’s and 60’s. Thank you for proving my point.
A better more proffesional less biased source without the nutter Hansen fudging the data.
http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/XX_Arctic.htm
In the last ten years there has been a huge increase in manmade CO2 emmissions and the Earth has cooled. This year the cooling has increased at a greater rate.
Doesn’t a huge increase in CO2 and a cooling Earth contradict the AGW theory. Or is it enough to rename AGW, ‘Climate Change’ and claim the global warming caused cooling?
Reminds me of that song about Ocean Front Property in Arizona.
“Stalin thought George was a conspiracy against communism. Sounds like you lean more towards the beliefs of Stalin.”
And now you’re just being *really* stupid. Do you really expect me to take you seriously when you start ranting this kind of nonsense like some frustrated kid?
“if you actually look at the graphs you have provided most don’t go back to the 30’s and the graphs show less or equal ice”
Yes, yeeeess – keep smoking the denialist crack pipe. The evidence doesn’t say that at all. In fact half the graphs show relatively steady ice until two decades ago when there has been a marked drop off.
Do try not to forget Shawn – its the NSIDC themselves who are pointing out that the current low ice extent is unprecendented. So they are *HARDLY* going to then provide you graphs on their own site that immdeiately contradicts their position!!!! The graphs in actuality support it.
In mean, are you really *that stupid* that you’d actually try and claim their NSIDC’s own graphs contradict their position? I appreciate that while you have already ably demonstrated your own abilities at self contradiction in this thread, not everyone else (like NSIDC) are going to follow your own low standards…go and have a rethink on that?
(Although I admit it would be more hilarious for me if you did! You can go get the raw data off them if you ask – then you can go do your own *expert* analysis. Just try not to contradict yourself too much again, ok?)
Let us look at each graph individually and discuss them. Since we are talking about the melt we will use the mean Autumn figures.
1/The Barents Sea Graph shows the mean Autumn extent to be lower or the same as today with a rise in ice level in between.
2/Laptov Sea graph shows less Autumn ice in the past then now.
3/ Chukchi Sea shows less ice in the 60’s then now.
4/ Kara Sea shows a low Autumn ice level similar to today.
5/ East Siberian Sea shows little difference from 1940 till today.
6/ The only graph which actually shows any of the 30’s shows an ice level similar to Autumn 08.
These graphs prove that the ice levels were at a similar low level to today in the recent past. And they do not show the even higher temps and likely lower ice levels of the 30’s.
You proved my point. You sure your not French?
You never explained how the manmade CO2 could increase hugely in the last ten years the earth could begin to cool?
Page 673– even Hansen says there is unexplained warming in the ’40’s Arctic
“The model’s fit with peak warmth near 1940 depends in
part on unforced fluctuations, e.g., the runs of Hansen et al.
(2005b), with nearly identical forcings to those in this
paper, appear to agree better with observations. As expected,
the runs in which the solar forcing includes only the
Schwabe 11-year solar cycle (Fig. 4), available on the
GISS web-site and included in Table 2 as AltSol, do not
produce peak warmth near 1940. AltSol also differs from
the standard ‘‘all forcing’’ scenario in having the sulfate
forcing reduced by 50%, thus yielding an 1880–2003 global
warming of 0.64C.
It may be fruitless to search for an external forcing to
produce peak warmth around 1940. It is shown below that
the observed maximum is due almost entirely to temporary
warmth in the Arctic. Such Arctic warmth could be a
natural oscillation (Johannessen et al. 2004), possibly unforced.”
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf
I still await your first bit of evidence to back up your theory.
Let us look at each graph individually and discuss them.
So you really *are* that stupid! Hurrah! Of course your detailed analysis immediately starts to, umm, lack detail as you apply try to apply a bunch of glib one-liner summaries of your own rose tinited denialist slant to them.
And they don’t say that all.
But hey, seeing as you are here peer-reviewing NSIDC’s data for them and their claim of unparalleled ice loss, I also invite you to take your ‘evidence’ to them and challenge them on their own data directly…here’s their address (srenfrow@nsidc.org or +1 303.492.1497)
I mean thats what Steve Goddard did a couple of weeks back. He challenged NSIDC on their own data….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/15/arctic-ice-extent-discrepancy-nsidc-versus-cryosphere-today/
…And look what his interpretation of the data got him. A giant mea culpa. So let usknow when NSIDC produce their retraction and admit that after reviewing theri data with Prof Whelan that they have got it wrong. “No cause for concern everybody.”
You never explained how the manmade CO2 could increase hugely in the last ten years the earth could begin to cool?
I’d be interested in seeing where you got this data from? Please provide some links of this…
Page 673– even Hansen says there is unexplained warming in the ’40’s Arctic
But you still don’t get it do you? You still haven’t demonstrated that the high latitude warming that occured back then caused a level of ice loss paralleled with todays ice loss!!! Where’s your ice extent data? (Which obviously the graphs do not show a clear link as you would need to make a case.)
You are a laugh PKD not so long ago you were defending the use of ice core proxies to give a measure of Ice extent , now you are calling for data!!!!
Because actually ice core data *is* perfectly valid Iain old chap when used appropriately.
Indeed, the data available from of ice cores proxies is further evidence to support the view that todays unparalleled ice extent!!!
And what’s wrong with calling for data from your denialist camp? I know you famously like to ask for data but never provide any yourself Iain, but remember, it’s our denialist friend here is so insistent that today’s low ice extent is paralleled by the conditions of the 30’s .
And he needs to start backing it up with more than anecdotes and one-line summaries of detailed NSIDC graphs.
I mean even *you’d* concede Ian that ice core proxy data starts look incontestable when being compared to grainy b&w photos!!!!
But Shawn is not just talking about a few grainy photos PKD he is talking about observational recordings of the weather condition that go back several hundred years of which those photos are just a very small part.
You are elevating Proxy records over observational data Hmm in the time frame we are considering (of he last century or so) which do you think is more reliable? And why .
Yes Iain – and who provided the link to Shawn of those observational recordings he is now (incorrectly) claiming support his view Iain – I did!!!
And wasn’t it Shawn who started off with the meme that his anecdotes and photos (‘good old Scotty – what a hero!’) are sufficient proof to back up his claims. But their not.
You are elevating Proxy records over observational data
Errr, no – I’m not. Both are valuable in their own context, but I have not suggested proxy data is more important / elevate over observational data. You’re just fantasising now.
I appreciate you feel the need for to stick up for your fellow denialist, but please try to do so by presenting some facts Iain – not misrepresentations of my position!
Cheers,
PKD
.
You remind me of your countryman Charles deGaulle when he claimed the French won WW2 single handidly. Refused to accept the truth.
Look very carefully at the graphs in the link you posted and you will see that they indicate the ice level was low in the 40’s increased and then decreased to the present which is the same level as the 40’s. You have yourself convinced enough about Globaloney Warming that you won’t open your eyes to look at your own link. Just proof of the religious fervor of the Globaloney warming crowd. This is a textbook case.
And I even presented you the evidence were Pope Hansen says there was unexplained warming in the 40’s and you still will not waver.
It is a well known that there has been a huge increase in manmade CO2 in the last ten years. China is now the number one greenhouse gas emmitter and then you have India and the rest producing huge new amounts.
And the satellite data shows a slight cooling and now an increased cooling. Even Pope Hansen’s well massaged data shows some cooling, although he will fudge the data as long as possible to assuage the believers.
PKD,
And still you have not provided one tiny bit of data to backup your claims. Can you provide something, anything that will bolster your argument?
Bluster and insults may be considered evidence in France but in Canada we rrequire concrete evidence.
And please read your own link to see the truth.
PKD,
If looking at all six graphs(from your link) is to complicated could you pick two and then use them to explain how they bolster your argument?
You remind me of your countryman Charles deGaulle when he claimed the French won WW2 single handidly. Refused to accept the truth.
Hahahaaaahh – oh gawd you’re seriously deluded aren’t you? And I already told you once I am not from France – sheesh! – how many times do you have tell Canadians something??? Is this linked to your US inferiority complex?
And still you have not provided one tiny bit of ice extent data to backup your claims. Can you provide something, anything that will bolster your argument?
Err – I did – the NSIDC graphs. You just think they say the opposite to what NSIDC state they do…good luck with peer-reviewing it with them BTW!!!
I guess you’re not going to produce any data of your own, other than try to claim the NSIDC are somehow mistaken, despite the fact that I produced evidence – all the hallmarks of the denialist.
When you actually learn to present some real sicence Shawn and can present it sensibly, do let us know ok?
Please explain how the graphs bolster your argument that there was a much larger ice cover in the Arctic in the 40’s than at the present time. Try to be civil.
This is what the NSIDC article says.
Quote NSIDC
“The 1930s to 1940s saw significant high latitude warming ”
Please comment on what you think they mean by that?
Try to be civil.
Coming from someone who tried to compare my views to Stalin, I’ll take that as irony…
Quote NSIDC
“The 1930s to 1940s saw significant high latitude warming ”
Please comment on what you think they mean by that??
Oh good grief. It means what it says – that there was a cycle of warming in the polar regions in that period. No one denies that. As I pointed out earlier – it does NOT (like your grainy photos) therefore prove that the ice extent is as low now as they currently with the current period of warming.
Because the records of ice extent data (as per the graphs I have already linked you too) do not show that.
Again if you want to argue the toss with the NSIDC of their graphs and what they show, by all means take it up with *them* like Steve Goddard did. Their more than happy, as with Goddard, to debate their data.
In fact – if you can answer one thing for me today – please explain why you haven’t rushed off to debate the NSIDC’s graphs with them, given you are so insistent that they somehow prove your point?
Rgrds,
PKD
.
PS – Also can you tell me why you feel the need to always reply to one post with 2, 3 and 4 posts? Are you trying to substitute quality with quantity???
Sorry, you sure act like a frenchman.
Please pint out where the graphs do not indicate an Autumn ice level similar to today. I am not debating the NSIDC’s graphs. They are in full agreement with my belief that there was a low ice level in the Arctic similar to todays level. Look at them and you will see the same.
Point out to me which graphs of the six indicate there were much larger amounts of ice in the autumn of the 30’s than there is today. (or the 40’s since there graphs don’t include the 30’s)
Quit ducking the factual argument.
They are in full agreement with my belief that there was a low ice level in the Arctic similar to todays level. Look at them and you will see the same.
Back to the delusions. Again you avoid explaining why if you think NSIDC graphs prove something different to what they say they do – why the hell aren’t you off trying to prove it with them, the accredited experts in the field???
I’ll give you the answer – its because you know deep down despite the denialism, that you are really talking complete bollocks.
But if you really want me to accept your point with the NSIDC data proves your case and not mine, you are going to have to take it up with them. Good luck!
And if it really needs saying, the fact is you are so deluded that you think i am ‘ducking’ the debate, when it was *i* who provided the very data you think proves your delusion (or denialism if you prefer – to me the two words are interchangeable).
The fact you are trying on this ridiculously transparent denialism just highlights the fact that trying to debate with you is pointless.
Let me know when you have NSIDC’s retraction or something sensible to say, ok?
All I want is a factual argument without the blathering and obscufation.
No need to go directly to NSIDC. The graphs are right in the link and very easy to understand.
Now look at the NSIDC link you posted and assess the graphs.
Then tell me which of any of the graphs provides proof of your argument that there was a much higher level of ice in the Arctic in the 40’s than today.
You are still ducking the factual argument.
*sigh*
You’ve already been GIVEN the factual argument – I’m ‘ducking’ nothing. My argument and indeed my assessment of the graphs is exactly the same as NSIDC’s assessment. And in my opinion, if I had to weigh up their assessment against your completely opposite assessment, then I’d have to say that their interpretation of the graphs have slightly (like the Sun is slightly hotter than the moon) more credit and authority than your glib one line summaries where you claim that they show ice extent as low in the 30’s as now.
Sorry – but thats the way it is. I’ll go with NSIDCs interpretation of the data over yours any day of week, month or year. If you want me to buy into your interpretation then I suggest you go get it peer-reviewed by accredited experts in the field – preferrably the authors themselves.
Yet for some reason you yourself keep ducking that opportunity – gosh, wonder why??
So until that point in time, NSIDC’s view (and mine) of the graphs stands; yours doesn’t. It’s that simple – get over it!
Rgrds,
PKD.
Absolute proof of the religious factor from the AGW gang. When presented with an overiding level of proof there is an absolute refusal to believe.
From NSIDC
“The 1930s to 1940s saw significant high latitude warming and therefore it is important to document accompanying changes in ice conditions for comparison with those of summers since 1990.”
NSIDC agrees with the(my) position that there was a lower level heat and ice in the Arctic in the ’30’s and 40’s. They totally contradict PKD’s belief that the Earth has been warming continously from CO2 for over a hundred years.
The facts have changed and the AGW theory is being shown to be baloney.
If PKD and the rest of the AGW gang stick there fingers in their ears and put on the blinders refusing to believe any of the actual facts it won’t make the Earth warm up.(can PKD not properly read those very simple graphs or can he read them and just refuses to accept the factual evidence or is he just deliberately lying?)
We are entering a cooling period for the Earth and the globaloney warming people are really scrambling to cover this up. When the facts change it would be better to change their position, but at this point they have dug such a hole it is difficult to gracefully exit from the entrenched position.
PS PKD
Bafflegab doesn’t change the factual information supplied by the graphs.
Gosh – I have rarely seen such deluded, false understanding of the data in all my life.
You truly are a special brand of denialism aren’t you Shawn?
PS – please check the other post for the logic that deomnstrates your delusion….