17 Aug 07
D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."
The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."
This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."
Reacting yesterday to word that certain European governments and officials are suddenly trying to abandon their costly "global warming" policies, Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063
Whats the word among the global climate change warming cult on this? Is the data any good?
17 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkDo you have any links to the actual 1920's articles? It would be nice to know whether or not the observations were based on local village gossip.
D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2,[b] 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."
The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been r he word among the global climate change warming cult on this? Is the data any good?[/b]
Wise words by Aurelius. Note that they don't state 'the majority is always wrong, best be on the side of the minority'.
18 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Merk[/i]Well, the guy who pointed out the error himself said that it makes no practical difference to the global trend (whhich is true given that we're dealing with trends rather than specific years), though it does affect the American maximums, there's links in the other thread on it if you want to do some further reading.
D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2,[b] 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."
The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention [i]"great masses of ice have now been r he word among the global climate change warming cult on this? Is the data any good?[/b]
The data is good, it was the analysis of that data by NASA since 1999 which was flawed, any analysis of the data which didn't depend on NASA's analysis is unaffected. While it does affect any arguments that depend on specific years (of which there is virtually none), it produces a near negligible effect on the trend as it is simply 1/f noise.
Though if you've any further links or info backing up the statement "Reacting yesterday to word that certain European governments and officials are suddenly trying to abandon their costly "global warming" policies" I'd be interested in reading it, can't find such a link in the washington post link.
18 Aug 07
Originally posted by MerkI've done research myself on climate changes and mass balance of glaciers in Svalbard (Norwegian arctic). According to the long term temperature records there, there was a general warming at the start of the 20th century, to temperatures similar to those of today. This marked the end of the 'Little ice age', a relatively small temperature blip which lasted a few hundred years or so, which saw glaciers grow to their largest extent since during the last ice age. Arctic sea ice was also known to reach the north coast of Norway during the 19th century, according to old ship diaries - something that would seem impossible now. The little ice age was also responsible for why Victorians could skate on the Thames etc.
The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."
This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read o ...[text shortened]... e 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."
The general retreat of many glaciers described in the 1922 article is not surprising then since temperatures were rising. Back then it must have seemed quite remarkable the changes happening all around. You only have to go to the Alps and see old trimlines to see the massive changes that have occured to glaciers over the past several hundred years or so.
Although glaciers were able to recover slightly in the 1960's or so when temperatures cooled, we are seeing them melting again as temperatures rise again. From what i saw in the Alps last summer, it is more than likely that some smaller ones will dissapear within the next 10-20 years. I don't doubt global warming myself, and its true there are cycles of temperature, but the evidence i've seen suggests that the temperatures we are to expect in the near future is beyond any natural cycle that we've seen before, and is responsible due to human factors.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeTo the best of my knowledge, the internet wasn't around in the 1920's so I highly doubt there is a link to the early articles 😉
Do you have any links to the actual 1920's articles? It would be nice to know whether or not the observations were based on local village gossip.
Wise words by Aurelius. Note that they don't state 'the majority is always wrong, best be on the side of the minority'.
Truth is, I never went and looked for the articles from the 20's becauase I simply assumed they weren't on the net. The article states he pulled them out of a library.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonThat "reacting" statement caught my eye as well. I thought it was just flat out bad reporting, and possibly a little editorialising to throw that quote in and not ,at minimum, tell us the where when and who.
[/i]Well, the guy who pointed out the error himself said that it makes no practical difference to the global trend (whhich is true given that we're dealing with trends rather than specific years), though it does affect the American maximums, there's links in the other thread on it if you want to do some further reading.
The data is good, it was the analysi ...[text shortened]... I'd be interested in reading it, can't find such a link in the washington post link.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by MerkSometimes I get the feeling that us amateurs on the forums are better reporters then the professionals!
That "reacting" statement caught my eye as well. I thought it was just flat out bad reporting, and possibly a little editorialising to throw that quote in and not ,at minimum, tell us the where when and who.