Crisis 1922 style - Arctic Ocean getting warm; seals vanish and icebergs melt (1 Viewer)

[JBG]

Arctic Ocean getting warm; seals vanish and icebergs melt

(link, 1922 so no copyright issue)

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 [U.S.] Consul [George] Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers 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 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Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.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. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

– The foregoing AP article was published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922.

We had almost all of the automobile era to panic. I guess no one thought of acting as control freaks in that era. Similar articles have poked up in the New York Times. I can't find the link but I remember one in December 1969, just as New York was preparing to enter a deep freeze for most of January 1970.

Meanwhile we have a real darkening crisis underway; six hours of daylight has disappeared since June and soon, if no action is taken, we may be entirely dark.

Let's panic!

 

[Bok Tuklo]

 

[coyote505]

Arctic Ocean getting warm; seals vanish and icebergs melt

(link, 1922 so no copyright issue)
We had almost all of the automobile era to panic. I guess no one thought of acting as control freaks in that era. Similar articles have poked up in the New York Times. I can't find the link but I remember one in December 1969, just as New York was preparing to enter a deep freeze for most of January 1970.

Meanwhile we have a real darkening crisis underway; six hours of daylight has disappeared since June and soon, if no action is taken, we may be entirely dark.

Let's panic!

I remember the cover of Time IIRC, circa 1970 "Are We Entering a New Ice Age?"

 

[verrip1]

Is it too late to list icebergs as protected species?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Arctic Ocean getting warm; seals vanish and icebergs melt

(link, 1922 so no copyright issue)
We had almost all of the automobile era to panic. I guess no one thought of acting as control freaks in that era. Similar articles have poked up in the New York Times. I can't find the link but I remember one in December 1969, just as New York was preparing to enter a deep freeze for most of January 1970.

Meanwhile we have a real darkening crisis underway; six hours of daylight has disappeared since June and soon, if no action is taken, we may be entirely dark.

Let's panic!

The activists are in denial about natural cycles in the climate.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I remember the cover of Time IIRC, circa 1970 "Are We Entering a New Ice Age?"

Melting, about 50 years later cooling, about 50 years later again, warming again.

Looks like we may have a natural 100 years cycle.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Forget it, the whole climate alarmism debate has been reduced to interrupting golf tournaments, soup and paint throwing, blocking traffic (but only where they know there is little fight) by supergluing their hands to the street, and basically throwing themselves on the ground having temper tantrums worthy of "terrible twos" status.

The child antics all lost, entirely, even the Paris Accords negotiated by plenty of private jet-set elites are starting to fall apart.

Time for adults to come up with rational and obtainable solutions to problems alarmists were too busy being alarmists to consider.

 

[Buzz]

Melting, about 50 years later cooling, about 50 years later again, warming again.

Looks like we may have a natural 100 years cycle.

Are you seriously suggesting that the cooling that happened during the global dimming of the mid-20th century was natural??



Now you are ignoring aerosols... huh?? Isn't that what you accuse the IPCC of doing?

 

[coyote505]

Are you seriously suggesting that the cooling that happened during the global dimming of the mid-20th century was natural??



Now you are ignoring aerosols... huh?? Isn't that what you accuse the IPCC of doing?

It is entirely possible that the cooling was influenced by air pollution. The warming that apparently started in the 70s closely followed the adoption of pollution controls on our cars and smokestacks. We still had CO2, but with less soot, etc. to counterbalance it. I'm no fan of air pollution, but it may have been holding the Greenhouse Effect in check by "smoking" the glass.

 

[Buzz]

It is entirely possible that the cooling was influenced by air pollution. The warming that apparently started in the 70s closely followed the adoption of pollution controls on our cars and smokestacks. We still had CO2, but with less soot, etc. to counterbalance it. I'm no fan of air pollution, but it may have been holding the Greenhouse Effect in check by "smoking" the glass.

That is exactly what most climate scientists believe happened.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Are you seriously suggesting that the cooling that happened during the global dimming of the mid-20th century was natural??



Now you are ignoring aerosols... huh?? Isn't that what you accuse the IPCC of doing?

Hard to tell. Correlation does not mean causation. We have two possible causes, and they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[JBG]

That is exactly what most climate scientists believe happened.

Climate "scientists" or Scientologists" exactly how do they conduct their science/Scientology?

 

[Buzz]

Climate "scientists" or Scientologists" exactly how do they conduct their science/Scientology?

If you don't know the difference between a scientist and a Scientologist or are insinuating that they are both a religion then it is obvious to me that debating you would be pointless.

 

[Buzz]

Hard to tell. Correlation does not mean causation. We have two possible causes, and they are not mutually exclusive.

Really?? Have you all of a sudden completely forgotten about the years of you and longview talking about and citing studies of global dimming and brightening? You frequently claimed to believe that warming was suppressed by mid-20th-century aerosol pollution.

Here are a few quotes from you:

Aerosols in the northern hemisphere have kept the warming from occurring in any measurable means outside of the noise margin. It wasn't until the first world nations took actions against pollution, that we saw the warming we should have had.

Those hot temperatures of the 30's were almost entirely natural, and dimming likely reduced that natural warming. Look at all the cars world-wide that were starting to blossom in the 30's and 40's/ Look at all that pollution. Hence, the cooling scare of the 70's until we started clearing the skies man made aerosols.

And this one was just about 3 months ago:

Only quacks will take the 1979 to near current times and claim it all to be CO2. This was when the world governments started recognizing pollution was real, and created emissions standards. Clearing the skies let so much more sunshine in that had been hampered by pollution as the TSI increased, making it so we never saw the TSI increases affect temperature until we cleared the skies.

Not all completely true but it shows that you know that aerosol pollution was preventing a lot of warming. And that pollution was not natural.

Oh... and there are plenty more examples of you saying pretty much the same thing.

It is funny how your opinions can suddenly change when there is a fellow denialist to defend.

 

[longview]

That is exactly what most climate scientists believe happened.

But the dimming would have masked any warming man made or natural.
and the recent warming is simply the fast unmaking of perhaps centuries of dimming.
(I know we only have insolation measurements back to the 1950's, but we do not know how long we
have been masking warming.)

 

[JBG]

If you don't know the difference between a scientist and a Scientologist or are insinuating that they are both a religion then it is obvious to me that debating you would be pointless.

So noted. I consider "climate change" to be a cult, as I do the Church of Scientology.

 

[JBG]

But the dimming would have masked any warming man made or natural.
and the recent warming is simply the fast unmaking of perhaps centuries of dimming.
(I know we only have insolation measurements back to the 1950's, but we do not know how long we
have been masking warming.)

As you probably know I am a global warming skeptic. But query, China and India do not have environmental laws similar to those that prevail in the EU and US. I do believe that most "climate science" is a mutual admiration society where the scientists simply agree with each other.

 

[longview]

As you probably know I am a global warming skeptic. But query, China and India do not have environmental laws similar to those that prevail in the EU and US. I do believe that most "climate science" is a mutual admiration society where the scientists simply agree with each other.

Liquid hydrocarbon fuels and Natural gas, are much more limiting that coal in releasing smog causing agents.
The recorded dimming and brightening, has been recorded at many different places across the globe.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface

The climate scientists know what they are presenting is incorrect, but also know it is good for continued funding.
Look at the IPCC, who still uses ECS as a predictor of future temps, when ECS is based on a condition that can NEVER happen.
(The abrupt doubling of the CO2 level.) It's like simulating how long it would take a Human to fly 100 miles, IF Humans could fly!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Really?? Have you all of a sudden completely forgotten about the years of you and longview talking about and citing studies of global dimming and brightening? You frequently claimed to believe that warming was suppressed by mid-20th-century aerosol pollution.

Here are a few quotes from you:


And this one was just about 3 months ago:

Not all completely true but it shows that you know that aerosol pollution was preventing a lot of warming. And that pollution was not natural.

Oh... and there are plenty more examples of you saying pretty much the same thing.

It is funny how your opinions can suddenly change when there is a fellow denialist to defend.

Wow.

All that just because I worded something poorly.

I pity that you have nothing better to do than to find fault in others.

 

[verrip1]

It's almost too late. We need to immediately have Elon Musk build an escape missile so that we can send Kal-El and Krypto to a safe, primitive planet before the planet ruptures!!!!!!!!!

They'll never make the mistakes we did on their safe, primitive planet. Earth.

 

[Deuce]

I remember the cover of Time IIRC, circa 1970 "Are We Entering a New Ice Age?"

I don't think you do remember it. I think you've just seen this nonsense circulate in right wing circles, and never once really bothered to look into it.

Despite what the well-known, highly-scientific publication Time magazine asked (recall the question mark), a majority of scientists making predictions about climate change in the 1970s predicted warming in the near-future, despite the fact that temperatures had been falling at the time.

Did you know that?

 

[watsup]

The activists are in denial about natural cycles in the climate.

The deniers are in denial about the reality of the present AGW/climate change.

 

[watsup]

I remember the cover of Time IIRC, circa 1970 "Are We Entering a New Ice Age?"

How is this relevant? It obviously has not happened.

 

[watsup]

Melting, about 50 years later cooling, about 50 years later again, warming again.

Looks like we may have a natural 100 years cycle.

How silly.

 

[watsup]

So noted. I consider "climate change" to be a cult, as I do the Church of Scientology.

Nobody really cares what you "consider".