How times change

April 27th, 2012 at 12:41 pm by David Farrar

A reader sent this scan to me. Incidentally this was published just two years before the National Academy of Sciences first talked about global warming. Doesn’t mean it isn’t happening, just that predicting something as complex as climate is very very difficult.

UPDATE: Have had pointed out this is near identical to this 2007 climate change cover. This may be a photoshop. However Time in 1974 did run a story called “Another Ice Age?”. So someone has altered a modern cover to fit the old story.

I did check it out on Snopes, which is what I do with a lot of material sent to me by e-mail, but Snopes did not have an article on the cover and it was well known Time did run such an article, so I had no reason to doubt it was an actual cover.

This one is genuine!

Tags:

64 Responses to “How times change”

  1. Ryan Sproull (7,112 comments) says:

    Here’s hoping there have been some kinds of advances somehow in the last 35 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RRM (9,916 comments) says:

    Well there’s certainly been no new American comedy that can hold a candle to M*A*S*H Ryan.

    The thing with The Soviets kinda went away on its own though…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    I remember this cover! Of course these ‘issues’ are nothing to do with science or reality. Just like global warming and it’s probable sucessor, “The impending global diversity crisis”, the masses are invited to fear what they don’t understand and to pay for others to manage the fabricated crisis on their behalf.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (9,916 comments) says:

    I don’t recall if Time Magazine was blatant American propaganda in 1977 (because I hadn’t been born then) but now it certainly is. I suppose that’s some kind of ‘advance’…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    I recall reading that, and other publications around that time. There were plans such as spreading soot on the ice caps to try and melt them being hatched….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. lyndon (325 comments) says:

    Your scan has drop shadow on it.

    Have you been hacked today by someone trying to undermine your credibility?

    Apr. 9, 2007: “The Global Warming Survival Guide” http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070409,00.html

    In April 1977 Time covers looked like this http://search.time.com/results.html?N=46&Ns=p_date_range|1&Ntt=&Nf=p_date_range|BTWN+19770401+19770430

    (via @TheAtavism)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Camryn (543 comments) says:

    @ RRM – funny that Time should seem like American propaganda to you. As a Kiwi living in the US, I can say with certainty that it’s viewed as fluffy lefty Democrat propaganda over here. There’s even a column called “The Curious Capitalist” where she mostly seems to be curious about how much capitalism sucks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. lyndon (325 comments) says:

    Incidentally, the cover story (there was only the one in those days) for the edition with the ‘Ice Age’ piece was apparently Nixon http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19740624,00.html

    Neat archive. Would make me consider paying for content if I had a use for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RRM (9,916 comments) says:

    @Camryn –

    I don’t use “American” as a synonym for “Republican”.

    Or even as a euphemism for Republican… :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Probably a good time to point out that the “vanishing Arctic sea ice” is now …. normal:

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    Readers might enjoy this little beauty made in 1978, directed by Robert Altman, starring Paul Newman.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079770/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Griff (7,678 comments) says:

    alan wilkinson a graph
    covers five months and only three time series plotted
    found on wuwt or some other denial website with out doubt
    Its wot the graph doesn’t show that counts “cherry picked alt science” proof of an alt world viewpoint
    keep it up nut jobs I need to laugh at weirdos every day :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    As an ardent (and getting on in years) science fiction fan I do remember the global warming (and lots of other dystopian) scenarios being pushed in the 60s. As an idea it’s been around for a long while. Mind you none of the other dystopian theories eventuated either.

    I think we’re addicted to bad news.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. flipper (4,051 comments) says:

    No matter what you say about this, the climate has changed (often), is changing now, and will change again in the future.

    As geologists frequently remind us: “The past is written in the rocks. From that we (rather than theoretical and deliberately skewed computer models) can predict future change timing – give or take a few hundred thousand years”.

    The unanswered questions are:

    What causes it to change?
    Will the change be serious (catosrophic is not part of my vocabulary) for mankind ?
    Will climate warming be beneficial for mankind?
    Who benefits from all the climate bullshit?

    The reality is that the TIME article was promoted by the same bunch of self-serving idiots pushing (the now discredited) AGW/CC.
    They were preceeded by The Club of Rome (interesting similar membership to the warmist club of 2000+) and other scare-mongering rubbish such as Paul Erhlich of Population Bomb infamy. Erhlich is an enthusiastic warmist circa 2012 and still seeking grants to fund his “research”.

    Under-pinning all the crap are the UN bureaucrats efforts to create a world government run by Moon, Clark et al. They are seeking to create a multi-billion dollar fund that will “correct the immorality [sic] of the current world economic order”.

    Sooner rather than later, National will have to scrub the forestry sectors ETA/cash/tax breaks and use the ETS revenue to help reduce the nation’s debt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Griff, you are pathetic. NSIDC.ORG = National Snow and Ice Data Centre: http://nsidc.org/about/

    The “three series” shown represent the current year, the average year for all the data available, and the worst year. The “cherry picking” was done by the official website sponsored by:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
    National Science Foundation (NSF),
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

    NSIDC is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder.

    You just displayed your utter ignorance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    Flipper –according to this article by Bill Birch the ETS scheme has already paid off the forestry guys ( where did I read the other day that 70% of NZ forestry is owned by overseas interests ??! ).

    http://www.nzcpr.com/guest284.htm

    I was unaware of the bit which says National was ‘forced” into continuing with the ETS because of the potential legal case from the foresters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    As some one once commented “I cannot tell a lie”

    I sent the two images to DPF following reading a comment on this blog a few days ago. I had taken them from something Id seen on the web some months ago and cant remeber where they came from.

    I was in my 20’s on the 1970’s and the two environment stories back then were the coming ice age and acid rain. If you didnt freeze to death, then acid rain would get you – or at least make your hair fall out. (fortunately a combination of the sulphur in the air and carbon particles from diesel engines and coal fires made the world warm up and saved us from at least one of the evils – or thats what the boffins claimed at some later stage.)

    So – I had no reason to suspect the Time cover image was a con – climate cooling was a real subject in the 70’s. Its wasnt subject to the “Disaster Porn” that the media gives to everything today – but the fact was it was seen as a serious problem. So I dont feel too bad about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    There was a paper or two on what seemed to be a cooling phenomenon- I actually remember a few discussions – but in the journals the overwhelming number of papers on the topic of global temperature pointed to warming.

    Alan Wilkinson, you are cherry picking. You need to understand the difference between extent and thickness – one year ice forms quickly but is soon gone, it’s the multi-year ice that is more important – and most important is sea ice volume. You may have a problem with maths so I won’t even bother posting the relevant graph, which, although it is from the same source as you quote, you won’t believe, anyway, will you?

    The good news is that Nature Climate Change is celebrating its one year anniversary and is placing one article from each of its first twelve issues on its home page for perusal, free of charge.

    Go here: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/focus/1st-anniversary/index.html?WT.mc_id=CC1204CH010&gclid=CKDE492d1K8CFeFfpgodVjoufA

    Furthermore, since I have all 12 issues in my bookcase, anyone who identifies here as a real person can email me (luchansen@live.com) and arrange a visit to look through them all, again, free of charge. I’ll even supply the tea/coffee – although evening visitors are welcome to bring a tipple or two ;-)

    So this offer applies to the likes of David Farrar, who although giving lip service to the science, nevertheless continues to foment mischief on a very serious topic, David Garrett, Whale Oil (we all know who he is), Mathew Hooten, even Alan Wilkinson and whomever else wishes to possess genuine knowledge instead of falling victim to his or her own cognitive misapprehensions.

    DPF, are you starting a new tradition of a hoax per week (give or take)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Griff (7,678 comments) says:

    As I said Alan you pulled the graph from wanking with watts or somewhere as valid.
    It proves only the death of your reasoning
    luc gave you a rebuttal …. I just laugh at you
    weirdo Intelligent design as well? the two go together quite well don’t ya think

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. cows4me (248 comments) says:

    I bet this “fine” magazine is read by Shonkey, kookmen, and the idiot Smith, they probably only got the warming version.. How long can the lie continue?. And where the fuck does all the cash go that is stolen because of this bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    I know you love Changing History to Create A New Truth Luc but despite the fact that there was nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars in funding spent today to promote man-made global warming, fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media.

    All the usual suspects who are promoting man made global warming were promoting the new ice age 40 years ago.
    Newsweek, Time Magazine, the New York Times, the Washington Post the National Academy of Sciences and NASA.
    There were also several books and ‘scientific’ papers dealing with global cooling.

    At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970 Global Cooling was the Hot Topic….
    Environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”
    C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”
    Kenneth E.F. Watt on global cooling: “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Andy

    You just enjoy wallowing in your myths:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

    The comments are informative, too.

    But, you just sit back in your cradle of delusion, good boy, and let the grown ups do some work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Griff (7,678 comments) says:

    Yada yada
    Media short term beat up from the seventies
    Then a proven dog whistle on some ones behalf
    All major scientific bodies all major governments have the whole thing wrong
    A few weirdo alt science nut jobs must be right keep up the good work boys :twisted:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen…

    You need to understand the difference between extent and thickness – one year ice forms quickly but is soon gone, it’s the multi-year ice that is more important – and most important is sea ice volume. You may have a problem with maths so I won’t even bother posting the relevant graph

    Hehe, funny, how a 3rd former Luc Hansen tries to lecture Dr. Alan Wilkinson (PhD Chemistry) in science. Jesus, I didn’t know that 3rd formers sometimes give lectures University post-grad students & post-doc researchers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Fala

    Facts are what they are. Alan’s posts belie his pedigree, much like yours, it would seem.

    Is Alan 92, perhaps?

    How is your email exchange with Dr James Hansen going?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. berend (1,708 comments) says:

    Global cooling is even in my Britannica 1991 edition. It was definitely the rage for a while.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dog_eat_dog (780 comments) says:

    There’s a very dry reference to global cooling in Local Hero.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    “You just enjoy wallowing in your myths”

    And that from Luc Hansen, Smith impersonified, who can’t remember what he says from one day to the next.

    In another 5 years Luc will reject that global warming was a big talking point and will (Correctly) point out that only 77 scientists actually agreed that humans were the main cause of global warming and that most scientists found no evidence of this.

    Luc Hansen, dedicated employee of Minitrue, proudly putting facts and history down the memory hole for as long as it takes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Ah, Andy has even run out of myths, so it’s just personal attacks.

    I love winning arguments!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Luc, first, why is sea ice thickness more important than extent? It makes no difference to sea level since the ice floats. Neither does it make any difference to surface albedo. Second, arctic extent varies naturally enormously every year from winter to summer, typically from 15 million sq km to 5 million sq km – so two thirds of the arctic ice is new every year. Third, it is relatively straightforward to measure ice extent from satellite sensors. Estimating volume is far more difficult, approximate and less timely.

    In fact, I suspect you were going to quote the PIOMAS chart data, which is simply another climate model. You won’t like to compare it with the actual experimental data as in Fig 2, here at your favourite website:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/arctic-sea-ice-volume-piomas-prediction-and-the-perils-of-extrapolation/

    Frankly, it makes little sense to me that there can be a major divergence between trends in ice extent and volume. After all, extent comprises two of the three dimensions of volume.

    As for Nature, it has been publishing unmitigated scaremongering crap on climate change for some time. You need to read more widely if you are capable.

    Griff, you are still infantile. Grow up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Griff (7,678 comments) says:

    Alt science will not stop for you Other Andy. You will still fail to see the difference between right wing conservative propaganda and reality.
    Never mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. LabourDoesntWork (290 comments) says:

    Doesn’t mean it isn’t happening, just that predicting something as complex as climate is very very difficult.

    Very EASY for the people who made these predictions. But predicting accurately? That’s a different story – which I’m sure is what you had in mind.

    When it’s realised how political it all is it makes sense how scientists can be so wrong. Science is fine in theory but, like an improperly controlled experiment, it isn’t done without outside influences. No wonder that “Scientists have been on the wrong side of every political movement of the 20th century.”(Vox Day)

    Why should one believe the science “establishment” any more than any other establishment? That’s just blind faith no matter how credentialed they are and even more absurd the *greater* the consensus is on something as politically useful as AGW/CC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Luc and Griff
    Wrong again and again and again and again…………

    – There is no catastrophic global warming.
    – There is no linear or accelerating rate of global warming compared with increasing levels of CO2.
    – The Himalayan glaciers are not melting.
    – It still snows in winter.
    – Polar bears haven’t died out but are thriving.
    – The Arctic Ocean is not ice-free.
    – There is no acceleration in sea level rise.
    – There is little (if any) change in the Ocean temperatures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Griff (7,678 comments) says:

    Alan do you fail to see the difference between volume and extent

    FFS never let U loose ordering concrete

    Dont get touchy I became this way after chasing down hundreds of bogus proof from the alt science lobby.
    If you post to a graph link to the source article. a naked graph is meaningless especially if it only shows partial years and no context.
    Thats why you just got laughed at

    from your link http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/arctic-sea-ice-volume-piomas-prediction-and-the-perils-of-extrapolation/
    “The motivation for this time series is to visualize the fact that the long term Arctic-wide loss of sea ice is not only happening in extent, which is well measured by satellites, but also in thickness, which isn’t. Ice volume, the product of sea ice area and thickness, is a measure for the total loss in sea ice and the total amount of energy involved in melting the ice. Though this is a very small part of the change of global energy content, it is regionally important and investigations into the cause of sea ice need to pin down the sources of this energy.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Luc Hansen

    “Ah, Andy has even run out of myths, so it’s just personal attacks.”

    Personal attacks Luc, where?

    A case of projection Luc?
    Remember this….?

    “Fuck, there are some disgusting people on this blog!”
    “I can’t believe you are so fucking stupid.”
    “You wankers are pathetic.”

    Forgotten about that Luc?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Alan, thin ice melts faster than thick ice, and the Arctic is on a downward spiral.

    Here is a link for you: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaIceArea/

    A quote: “It seems likely that all September Arctic sea ice may be gone within a few decades, if human- made greenhouse gases continue to increase.”

    And: “(decrease of) sea ice area causes an amplifying climate feedbacks”

    We don’t need climate models to measure sea ice extent and thickness – we measure it, reasonably accurately.

    I see you inundate the Herald with your nonsense – are you one of those scientists who needs to die off so the new facts become the conventional wisdom of the next generation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Andy

    What are you on about?

    That’s three facts in succession!!

    Remember, it’s all about context.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Griff (7,678 comments) says:

    Hes having a cognitive dissonance attack
    Easy as hell to rebut your statements andy …or….
    Pull you up for the catastrophic definition that neither of us use.

    Its the same old yada yada yada
    No matter how many times you say it its still nutjob alt science weirdo good for a laugh :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Griff, 90% of that quote is saying exactly what I already said. The rest is irrelevant since long run sea ice extent is the issue. As for the chart, if you are not capable of gleaning the context from NIDC’s website which published it – as well as from the long run average which it contained, I’m not very interested in your opinion on anything.

    Luc, again, extent is the issue. Yes, the Arctic trend has been down although there is some evidence this has been caused by wind patterns rather than warming. However currently, as I stated at the beginning, Arctic ice extent is normal.

    As for your claim that ice thickness is measured accurately, that is refuted by my very link Griff just quoted. And you are further wrong, it is a model output, not a measured statistic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Alan

    Whaaat!?

    Is there still ice in the Arctic?

    And there I thought the imminent Nasa climate scientist Jay Zwally and his Global Warming followers had predicted that “the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012”?

    Another 5 months to go…..
    Better start thawing pretty quick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Alan, this is a measured output:

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html

    Two satellites, measuring ice to within the breadth of a human hair.

    Read the science accompanying the interactive graphic.

    No doubt you will find a way to distort it, as you do everything that doesn’t suit your biases

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    There’s nothing in that link about measuring thickness. They estimated ice age from emissivity, not thickness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Griff (7,678 comments) says:

    So you link to a graph I then track down the web page read it in context then maybe Google reliant terms and find its not actually saying the sea ice is not melting its saying it is in volume not so much extent.
    Come back here and still get to laugh at the misappropriation of the truth behind your exertion.
    As I stated with out doubt trolled from WUWT or similar propaganda merchants.
    :lol:
    alt science for ya

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Alan, Alan, Alan…

    they estimated ice age from emissivity, not thickness.

    Now you have got me in a Catch 22. Good for you. Tell you what, I’ll run down to Mitre 10, get a tape measure, and quickly run around and under the Arctic sea ice and get straight back to ya! ;-)

    While you are waiting, read this from NASA:

    “Multi-year sea ice hit its record minimum extent in the winter of 2008. That is when it was reduced to about 55 percent of its average extent since the late 1970s, when satellite measurements of the ice cap began. Multi-year sea ice then recovered slightly in the three following years, ultimately reaching an extent 34 percent larger than in 2008, but it dipped again in winter of 2012, to its second lowest extent ever.”

    Who has the most credibility, Alan? An organization that sent men and women to the moon, or a retired teacher from Whangarei?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Griff, glad you acknowledge the accurately measurable Arctic sea ice extent is currently normal.

    Now explain why the world should be spending trillions of dollars to make no detectable impact on climate change which is anyway not happening at an alarming rate?

    Or just keep laughing manically and pointlessly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Luc, don’t keep shutting your eyes and ears to the simple fact that Arctic sea ice extent is currently normal as reported by NASA’s satellites.

    Yes, it has varied a lot, from year to year. But at the moment it is normal. End of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Griff (7,678 comments) says:

    Go back to Alans original graph
    It shows the winter not the peak melt in September,cherry picked selected time frame to get around the truth that the summer ice is the ice thats melting.

    And you wonder why I laugh at U all.
    You have a bloody phd
    :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Here’s a two year context for you:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png

    Yes, the summer melts have been affected a little more than the winter freezes, but clearly as the anomaly chart at the bottom shows there has been a strong recovery to normal recently. That is the simple truth. You don’t need even need a PhD to understand it – just an open mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Alan is making it all up:

    “Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the winter of 2011–2012 on March 18, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has announced. (Extent is the total area of ocean in which ice concentration is at least 15 percent.) With a total extent of 15.24 million square kilometers (5.88 million square miles), sea ice was below the 1979–2000 average, but slightly above the record low, which was recorded during the winter of 2010–2011.”

    2012 “slightly above the record low”…last year.

    Yes, folks, that’s Alan’s definition of “normal.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Luc, I’m not making anything up, just showing you the data which speaks for itself. It doesn’t need any spin to go with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    More cherry picking, Alan.

    Here is their blurb, relating sea ice extent to an increase in temp at the North Pole of about 4C:

    “Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest change has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%. Decreases observed in winter are more modest. We maintain this updated archive of sea ice concentrations and extents at the University of Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    The last two years of data is not cherry picking, Luc. It is what it is.

    You might just as well complain that looking only at the Arctic is cherry picking, since the Antarctic sea ice extent has tended to increase slightly over the past 30 years. Also, Arctic sea ice has varied widely in relatively recent history. There are uncertainties about its sensitivity to weather patterns as well as to aerosol effects.

    The fact is that it is currently at a normal extent. We don’t know what will come next. We only know that if the alarmists were right then it should be far below normal now and it is not. Just as Foster has to resort to complaining it would be warmer if it was not for the sun, El Nino and aerosols so the alarmists have to explain why the polar bears still have just as many floes to stand on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Griff (7,678 comments) says:

    From your graph doctor alan http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
    The increase in see ice melt in summer will be from
    4.8millon tonnes mean 1970 to2008 remaining
    To 3.0millon tonnes remaining at present
    Is a ? percentage increase in see ice melt doctor alan
    interesting to see again a limited time frame to the graph
    Guess the previous ten years was to scary for alties delicate brains :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Two years?

    Two years?

    Two years?

    So from 1997 to 1998, we’re fucked.

    But from 1998 to 1999, we’re cool, right?

    Got it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Griff, not tonnes: sq km. And that difference is what the red line at the bottom of the chart is displaying. As you can see, it has tracked back to zero over the past six months.

    I think the previous ten years was only scary if you are an alarmist. Otherwise you would be aware that the Arctic has lost ice before even in the twentieth century and there really was a MWP in which Greenland was settled and farmed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Luc, global temperature rise is modest. Global sea level rise is modest. Coal and oil will fuel the world for many decades yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Griff (7,678 comments) says:

    Budy even your proof does not say wot you maintain

    0 on the base line ANOMALY for one period of weather does not disprove climate change The melt in summer is anomalous
    Its a bloody significant change The decrees in sea ice makes the north west passage viable
    It also opens up vast mineral and protein sources

    so its try another tack till we find the truth then another till you start seeing the same old waste of time.
    Alt science loony tune.
    Thats when I start to laugh
    :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Everyone note how proud Luc is of his neatly stacked copies of Nature?.  I can see him arriving home and picking them up lovingly, savouring the smell of the printed word, soaking up the lovely pictures. The frequency with which he links to stories from this journal suggest that its a holy script for him.

    Well quite a few scientists think it’s somewhat less impressive. For example, Professor Judith Curry  (whom griff will shortly, and amusingly dismiss as an alt-science fundie nut job) has a dig at a paper published Nature here, observing:

    Nature also has an editorial on this [here].  I’ll be nice and just ask who writes this stuff? It can’t be a scientist.

    … and then concluding:

    Color me unconvinced by this paper.  I suspect that if this paper had been submitted to J. Geophysical Research or J. Climate, it would have been rejected.  In any event, a much more lengthy manuscript would have been submitted with more details, allowing people to more critically assess this.  By publishing this, Nature seems to be looking for headlines, rather than promoting good science.

    World Climate Report also weigh in on Nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    The decrees (sic) in sea ice makes the north west passage viable

    What was the anthropogenic CO2 level when this was first navigated (in recorded history), and how many time has it closed off only to re-open?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I see the usual irrelevancies and red herrings have crept in before the denialists crept off to their lair from whence they plot their next disservice to the human race and other species.

    However, since recovering three year old was up bright and early this morning, I thought I would do my weekly cruise through Real Climate and found a recent post very relevant to the thread topic – even better, it is not a hoax!

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/#more-11398 (Reader warning: contains material of an explicitly factual nature).

    The article is a review of a 1981 paper published in Science by Hansen et al and is simply remarkable in the accuracy of its global temperature projection, updated with the latest observations.

    Most relevant for the purposes of this discussion is this extract:

    Most interestingly, Fig.6 (below) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. At a time when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s, they confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. They assume that no action will be taken before the global warming signal will be significant in the late 1990s, so the different energy-use scenarios only start diverging after that.

    Sort of puts to the sword all the nonsense above, happily publicized by our fomenter of mischief and worse, about how the world was overwhelmed with portents of doom about an approaching ice-age which will now never arrive while humans are arounds, such is the minor nature of the forcings necessary to cause or negate ice ages – at least that is good news, surely!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Luc, I guess that was about the last time the alarmists underestimated temperature rise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    Guys why do you persist in dialoging with Him, use RIP.
    They all lie and obfuscate, because they need AGW to redistribute the wealth of the wicked white colonialists and take their cut.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I hereby challenge DPF on the veracity of this claim:

    Incidentally this was published just two years before the National Academy of Sciences first talked about global warming.

    I presume DPF means when the first paper was published linking CO2 emissions to an increase in global temperatures.

    DPF, you may like to peruse this 1972 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I don’t know if it was the first to explicitly link increasing CO2 to global temperature increase, but that’s not my point:

    Research Article
    G S Benton
    Carbon dioxide and its role in climate change
    PNAS 1970 67 (2) 898-899
    …earth’s surface. The present rate of increase of 0.7 ppm per year would therefore (if extrapolated to 2000 A.D.) result in a warming of about 0.60C-a very substantial change. A second cause of climatic change is particulate loading of the atmosphere. Some…

    PDF of full paper:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/67/2/898.full.pdf

    An extract:

    The effect of carbon dioxide is to increase the earth’s temperature by absorbing outgoing terrestrial radiation. Recent numerical studies have indicated that a 10% increase in carbon dioxide should result, on the average, in a temperature increase of about 0.3OC at the earth’ssurface. The present rate of increase of 0.7 ppm per year would therefore (if extrapolated to 2000 A.D.) result in a warming of about 0.60C – a very substantial change.

    A second cause of climatic change is particulate loading of the atmosphere. Some meteorologists have attributed the cooling of the earth since 1940 primarily to such pollution of the atmosphere by man.

    Looks like DPF has been listening to the denialists again and failing to fact check with original sources – a little more time-consuming than a quick visit to WUWT, perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. KressTech (1 comment) says:

    The “How to Survive the Coming Ice Age” cover is definitely a fake, definitely photo shopped from this 2007 issue.
    http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070409,00.html. You’ve got to give the photoshopper points for wit in copying the cover, e.g. swapping “The Sopranos” for “M.A.S.H” etc, though.

    It’s really not very hard to search the time.com archives and see that not only did that ice age cover never exist, but that covers then had a completely different graphic style. And there was not even an April 8 issue.
    http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19770411,00.html

    It’s also not really that hard to look up the actual newsweek cover for April 28 1975 to see what the cover was. And it was NOT about global cooling. So the statement “I have no reason to doubt it was an actual cover story” is just lazy.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/debunking-the-global-cooling-myth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote