We have been bombarded for years with graphs like the one below, presented as evidence of Arctic doom. The graphs conveniently start in 1979, which was the peak year of the last century.
seaice.anomaly.arctic.png (1122×912)
Thanks to the work of skeptics, two key government documents have been dug up – which tell us that Arctic sea ice extent was much lower prior to 1979.
In 1990, the IPCC published the graph below based on NOAA data. It shows us that Arctic ice extent in 1974 was almost two million km^2 less than 1979
www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
This tells us that 1974 Arctic ice coverage was similar to current coverage, which is also about two million km^2 less than 1979. But it is worse than it seems. The CIA published the document below in 1974, which tell us that prior to 1974, Arctic ice coverage was an additional 10% lower.
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
Deducting another 10% puts us back to about 2007 levels of ice. If the IPCC, NOAA and the CIA know about this, why is the information being obfuscated?
arctic sea ice since 1974, us arctic scam
If they can not create a concern about the Ice Conditions NSIDC and other groups claiming to research Ice would have no reason to exist.
Think of it as a make work project for unemployable and over educated clueless people.
It keeps them off welfare!
Given that they are still drawing tax payer funded salaries – they are still on welfare.
Nice resarch Mr Goddard.
Keep on catching and exposing the lies (and, maybe, sometimes honest mistakes).
Why is the information being obfuscated? I think we all know why. Most climate science has nothing to do with science.I can not imagine that most climate scientists are not aware of these facts. So why do they lie . Only because of the funding? Because of their bad science the economy goes down people die and the states take our freedom away . How can you live with that? Are they not human ?
They lie, and disingenuously obfuscate, because the leftist politicians and their media & “scientific” allies (climatologists are actually just a pawn in a bigger drama) start with the premise that cutting back on industrial civilization would be good. CO2 cuts pave the way. Global Warming is the handy bogeyman to use to push for these co2 cuts. They’ll take whatever they can get. If they get it all, we’re back to the stone age.
We need a concise viral type presentation that makes it clear that these people are first and foremost about lies and deception.
Because the public has heard something about this, but still doesn’t get it fully. Because the ClimageGate type stuff will fade unless we take more concrete PR type actions to make this clear in the public eye. Because the MSM and liberal establishments are working constantly to cover up these lies.
Keep on them Steve…… someone has this information.
Excellent. Keep digging there will be more.
You may like this from the same era -
http://lrak.net/cooling.pdf
That’s why we need all the original stuff before they destroy it or change it or before we lose the ‘Free’ Internet. Without the evidence we lose the battle. And who would you trust, all those scientists that tell us the world is flat or someone like Steven Goddard , an electrician, who tells you the Earth is round
Since the Dan Rather episode, CG1&2, and the Peter Gleick affair, aren’t we supposed to first ask if such documents are real?
Are you suggesting that the IPCC is putting fraudulent documents up on their web site?
Since there’s no indication of the source of the purported CIA document beyond a link to a Web site that doesn’t source it either, I’m simply asking where it came from.
Not only on their website, but in their literature too. As a matter of fact I have a copy of the 1992 IPCC supplementary report open on my desk in front of me – page 161 to be precise – and am looking at a graph identical to the one Steve has posted at the top of this thread.
If that’s a fake, I want my money back!
C’mon David – there are two babies, the IPCC’s and the CIA’s – give ‘em both a kiss, won’t you?
Don’t forget The Long Form Of The Birth Certificate, while we’re at it.
Great work, Steve!
Good point, David! I mean, if the IPCC used such documents, that certainly puts a suspicion on ‘em, right?
/sarc
For years I have been posting that the readers do a simple internet search of “Submarine Arctic” and see what you get. The Nautilus went under the arctic ice cap in 1958 and since then there has been on average more than one trip a year. I have found well over a hundred. There is even a web page dedicated to submarines at the north pole and arctic transits, with lots more pictures. You will find photos of Submarines at the North Pole and often the dates they were there. It appears to include every month of the year, AND many of the photos are ice free (or almost. Look at the thickness. It is not 3, 4, or 5 feet thick, often it looks less than 2 feet thick! Even the years claimed as having the most arctic ice have numerous submarine trips. US, Russia and GB all are found making this trip, and the pictures all provides the same information – The ICE was a lot thinner in the 60′s and 70′s.
How can they measure tree rings when they can’t even look at photos with ice in them and get an idea of the thickness of the ice? The ships log will provide dates time , location, and many will even include thickness.
When – if – someone like Gleick is put on public TV and quizzed on CAGW, this will be one of the graphs shown.
The warmists have been doing their back-search as have the skeptics over the past few years. They – and perhaps specifically Gore – must have been horrified by some of the peer-reviewed data they found, as (I believe) most are honestly driven by a (an overly developed) concern for the environment. This is why they – like Gleick – go out of their way to avoid a debate.
Gleick did his bad 48 hours or so after refusing the Heartland debate. Is it possible that it was the continuing threat of a debate that would open all the sores and wounds of CAGW for the world to see that drove him to attempt to discredit Heartland (and all skeptics in the process)?
On the skeptics’ side, the debate is about 15 powerpoint slides long. The warmists’ side is a $300 million advertising feature. The warmists say that it takes little to instill doubt in peoples’ minds, which is probably true. But perhaps that is because, unacceptable to the warmists, that there is little absolutely certain, and much certainly to doubt.
What do you think about the ice extent series from Walsh and Chapman, 2000.
The lows from the mid 70s is there, but all subsequent years but 2 are all below that level (not equal as you pretended above). It is also showing 1979 being above 72-75 as you stated, but that’s about it. The real peak was in the late 40′s to early 50′s (not 1979).. Since early 50′s, it is mostly going down.
I take it that reading the graphs above, is above your pay grade.
And I guess since waves formed patterns on the sands of northern Greenland sea ice has increased. Interesting. So I guess there are cycles involved, yeah?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747
Meant to say @Regg
The Walsh and Chapman 2000 results are shown here, in Figure 1:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_untersteiner.html
Steven, this seems like a good question for Walt Meier.
Do you really think Steve is going to talk to an actual scientist before he condemns them? He operates under “Shoot first, ask questions never.”
Weird – all those years working at national labs, and now I find out that I never talked to any scientists.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/16/nsidcs-dr-walt-meier-answers-reader-questions-on-sea-ice/
Maybe you did then — you rarely do now. You find some little aspect you can twist and misinterpret and put it up, without ever checking what the scientist who did the work says about your interpretation or even if your understanding is correct.
I keep forgetting. Global warming is making it cold.
> Global warming is making it cold.
A perfect example of your typical simplistic statement that twists and misinterprets the science. It’s all you ever offer.
You are still operating under the impression that global warming is about science.
David Appell says:
March 11, 2012 at 8:43 pm
A perfect example of your typical simplistic statement that twists and misinterprets the science. It’s all you ever offer.
==========================
David Appell says:
March 11, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Do you have a criticism of the idea, or only irrelevant personal digs?
==================
> You are still operating under the impression
> that global warming is about science.
Yet another example of the typically simplistic statement.
David,
I see that you want to play scientist very badly. I get to play scientist/engineer for 40 hours a week, and have that urge already fulfilled.
Global warming has nothing to do with science any more. It is a political movement.
> It is a political movement.
But strangely enough, I get notices all the time of papers full of the science of climate change.
http://www.agu.org/topdownloads/topdownloads.shtml
Dismissing it as a “political movement” saves you the trouble of having to actually argue against the research. Very convenient.
David Appell says:
March 11, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Do you really think Steve is going to talk to an actual scientist before he condemns them? He operates under “Shoot first, ask questions never.”
======================================
David Appell says:
March 11, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Do you have a criticism of the idea, or only irrelevant personal digs?
I’m going to decline from commenting until David releases his donors list.
“The graphs conveniently start in 1979, which was the peak year of the last century.”
Just to keep things honestly portrayed, did the last century begin on January 1st, 1900 or 1901?
Look Steven , if you can take a critic without throwing insults – it just show the kind of person you are.
Late 40′s early 50′s was the peak year for ice pack – that’s from the source you’re using: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/images/ice_extent.gif
1979 (and 77) was higher than 72-75, so what… All years after are all below, and all year before were higher. More than 60 years of decline – are you trying to hide the decline ? is this another chapter.
Your link shows 1979 considerably lower than 1974 – the opposite of the IPCC graph I linked to.
Regg, I think you’re missing the point. The point is that graph that you point to is incongruent with both the IPCC’s graphic and the CIA’s figures.
Clearly, both the IPCC and the CIA had sources for their statements. Where are they? It certainly isn’t the same sources with went into the graphic you’ve presented.
Science evolved since the 1990′s publication as anything else. The data from all sources has been reviewed by Walsh and Chapman, with the final update in 2000.
You should already know that most of the satellite data prior to mid 1978 was very sporadic for the Arctic, while there was an extensive coverage for the Antarctic.
The main reason for having most of the literature with a starting point in 1979, is because the permanent satellite monitoring of the Arctic ice pack only started in mid 1978. Trying to pull another conclusion for that simple fact, is pure fantasy.
Good point. Back in the 1970s when we were sending men to the moon on a regular basis, people just weren’t smart enough to measure Arctic ice.
But 40 years later we Earthbound geniuses are smart enough to go back in time – and make more accurate measurements from the 1970s.
Read the 1974 CIA report, note that it is concerned with climate change and the world’s inability to feed its population are a result of that climate change. Cooling, not warming. Most importantly, note that not once is CO2 even mentioned. How refreshing!
With all due respect Mr. Appell, your arguments are best left to the choir. People here who follow the work of Mr. Goddard and others are well informed because they do their homework. (that’s why they’re here, his claims check out)
Well smart enought to look at all the picture before jumping to the wrong conclusion.
The IPCC, NOAA and the CIA also jumped to the wrong conclusion, not to mention Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, Science News ……..
But no doubt you know better.
Not me.. Walsh and Chapman did it.
Well smart enought to look at all the picture before jumping to the wrong conclusion.
Can you imagine, if thing stayed the way they were in the 70-80′s you’d have Anthony still fighting for AGW. Are’nt you happy things changed.
Sorry for the double posting.. Sometime the web site is not coming back with a response. You can delete the first post.
Regg:
The only way they can produce ice extent for the period before satellite coverage is WAG. I do not care who they were or what they thought their credentials were, before the satellites were fully operational all that is available is WAG. The ice in the Arctic has been fluctuating for the last thousand years and even longer. It has been increasing since five thousand years ago. In fits and starts but increasing non the less. I would say put your ice extent in your pipe and smoke it but I think someone was smoking some powerful stuff when they created that master piece claiming the ice has been declining for over 80 years.
Of course I think the satellite record is questionable because of the advances that were made in all aspects of recording the ice since 1978. Any change in ice could be possibly related to changes that were made in the masking, the resolution or even the computer used to read the pixels and spit out the report.
What an interesting argument going on! There is the justification of 1979 start, and accusations of ad hominem attacks, and counter claims of other information, including that WAG means Meaningless. But where is the argument that the pre-1979 data is invalid (even with a larger than satellite error bar)?
The point, Angry Ones, is not just that starting at 1979 is convenient for the Sky is Falling narrative, but that the presentation that starting in 1979 is BASED ON is that prior to 1979 Arctic sea ice was approximately stable at 1979 levels. We are only upset at a big fall in sea ice extent since 1979 because we think that, prior to 1979, the sea ice was at least – and for the previous 50 years or more, at least equal to that of 1979.
When we find out that there is scientific data showing significant variations in sea ice extent prior to 1979 – not a surprise to the skeptic side, by the way, because, anecdotal or not, sailors had been reporting variations for literally centuries – we are in the same position as looking at Mann’s temperature proxies that don’t represent the 20th century temperature records: we have lost our special relationship we thought we had to the time period in question.
It’s the data. If tree-rings don’t quantitatively reflect recent temperatures, maybe we can’t say much with certainty about temperature changes today versus yesterday. If sea ice records since 1979 don’t quantitatively reflect even an equivalent period of time prior to 1979, maybe we can’t say much with certainty about the significance of sea ice today, either.
The entire CAGW story is based on today being special. This data suggests, nay says, that today is not special, not by a long shot.
There is no such assumptions that everything was stable before 1979. In fact any proxy data is showing otherwise.
1979 is the reference point because it has undisputable data starting mid-1978 to demonstrate the situation (from satellite obersvation). Multiple proxy data are showing the last peak being at abour 1950 over the last century.
If the same study is trying to include data prior to 1979, they’re being accused of not using the right proxy – or whatever conspiracy issue some could raise. Can you blame them not to go before that date.
I just did tried to go before 1979 and the first reaction was that i was a throll. What do you want, the reality ? Some can’t accept the reality as it is.
Like Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick showing “There is no such assumptions that everything was stable before 1979.”?
The CAGW acolytes are a weasely lot and change their position faster than Winston Smith could rewrite history.
Sorry, Regg,
Any concern about a change today is based on either an understanding or an assumption about the “normal” variability of yesterday. The alarm about the decline of Arctic sea-ice extent, real as it is since 1979, has as its implicit base that such a decline is abnormal – and, in the context of CAGW – a result of the increase in global temperatures since 1965. Any information that shows similar Arctic sea ice extent declining prior to 1979 within a temperature regime less than the post 1979 profile suggests that other factors than the “abnormal” current temperature rise (post 1979) are sufficient to explain post-1979 sea ice extent declines.
This is the MWP (and Roman and Minoan) problem of Mann reclothed as sea ice extent. If prior periods had changes similar to the IPCC period, i.e. post 1979, without CO2 being a possible factor, AND we don’t know the reasons for it, then the present time might be reflecting those same, unknown reasons. CO2 would not be a unique solution for the (non) problem of our age.
The rise in CO2 by fossil fuel consumption is unique to the last 170 years, being generous. Though an increase in temperature in the Arctic is intuitively a good reason for sea ice to be less extant, mathematically it is not necessary nor sufficient. Winds might have a part to play, and a reduction in MINIMUM temperatures only might be enough, for two examples. However, if there is no prior, similar decline to find one may say that the correlation is sufficiently unusual to be suspicious and then run with the idea (while understanding its tentative nature). This does not appear to be the case.
Current temperature rises and Arctic sea ice areal declines do not appear to be unique. That is the CO2 as villain problem. If you can’t discount natural factors, then attacking fossil fuel consumption as the cause of either case is based on speculation, not conclusive evidence. This is the essence of the skeptical position if you hadn’t noticed yet: it is not that the environment and our regional or global climatic conditions change, but that they are necessarily, or on solid evidence, the result of CO2 increases such that a continued increase in CO2 will induce catastrophic changes for the biosphere in the next few decades.
Regardless of the evidence, of course, is the Precautionary Principle, which says that the possibility of biosphere destruction is sufficient for us to abandon fossil fuel usage post-haste. But that is a separate discussion and societal costs are the dominant items of concern to that.
All effects attributable to man must pass the not-before man stage at first reading. If not, the reasons why natural causes can be excluded must be as important as why unnatural causes should be included.
We convince by what we omit as well as what we reveal. Gleickgate was an attempt to show that skeptics were omitting important information with which we guage the seriousness of what we say. Omitting past, known significant sea ice declines removed the context in which we could guage the seriousness of the current sea ice decline. If this was done with intent, even from a noble desire to help the world, it is deceitful. If it was done without intent, it reveals a sloppiness or lack of professionalism that should be discouraging to you as well as us.
This old CIA report has been available for years. Stoat blogged about it last year. Others did as far back as at least 2007.
As for SG’s analysis. Fail.
If the ice was at 2007 levels back in the 60′s then how did we miss the Northeast and Northwest Passages being open? Especially since we were trying to gauge the feasibility of shipping oil across the arctic. Oh, maybe it *wasn’t* at those levels:
15 to 20 feet high and 100 feet deep. Ice 35+ meters thick. They just don’t make ice like they used to – at least not in the arctic. By the way, if the Manhattan made the same voyage today (or any year since 2007) they wouldn’t even go through Prince of Wales Strait, there’s open water *north* of the strait in most years now – not ice 35 meters thick.
Buy a clue, maroons.
If you don’t have any argument about the science, perhaps you can just call names, right?
Ice 35 meters thick in 1969 where today, during the same time of year, there’s open water. I’ll stand by, “Buy a clue maroons.”
1923 : 70 feet of ice melted – exposing a previously unknown island.
http://www.real-science.com/arctic-meltdown
Get a clue Kevin.
35 meters….. that’s a lot!!! Kevin, you never get the feeling you’re being played?
suyts – Does it matter if it was 35 meters or five meters? Steve says there was less ice. The icebreaking tanker SS Manhattan couldn’t even make it through north of the Strait despite an escort of additional icebreakers. Today that area is open water in September.
Yes, someone is being played – SG is playing youse guys for suckers.
@suyts – From The First Arctic Tanker
Need more proof the ice was thicker back then? Or have you given up this lame attempt to back SG’s nonsense?
Kevin, does ice that thick sound normal to you?
You think the wind might have had something to do with it?
…seals have to breathe…polly bears have to eat
Oh, I thought Kevin said the ice was 35 meters thick. Now it’s 30, & that’s only because 3 meter ice has piled up? Somebody can’t keep their facts straight here.
Prediction: The Smartest Man In The World (he can bench-press 800lbs (that’s 14kg in the French fashion)) will be lecturing us about wind & pressure ridges, after having not read anything else in this comments section.
So Kevin Om/eill can ‘t point to a single peer-reviewed paper describing ice thickness in 1969?
@short_dick – there’s open water in that location during September now. Do you need a scientific paper to figure out what that means the thickness of the ice is?
Duh!’
You mean just like the 1800s? Heavens! It’ll never freeze back over. And in 1969 there wasn’t any wind to push ice around, either. It all stayed in the same place. I suppose next we’ll have to be lectured about how the Northern Hemisphere was flat and ice was created 6000 years ago.
Isn’t it amazing how the wind can pile ice up in one place….and blow it away in another
I would think that the main contributor to multi-year ice………….
And How did the submarines get to the North Pole and break through that 30 foot ice??? And only see ice 2 – 3 feet thick – Search the internet look at the pictures they are there, several in February, March – MORON
Here are a few find your own.
Skate March 1959 – North Pole,
Skate, Whale, Pargo 1969 – North Pole
Queenfish, Hammerhead 1970 – North Pole.
@Urbrainless.
Ummm … the North Pole is *not*, I repeat *not* Banks Island.
Your lament, like the scarecrow in Oz, should be “If you only *had* a brain.” Check an ice thickness map – dummy. The coast of Greenland and the coast of the Canadian Archipelago is where you’ll find *thick* ice – not at the North Pole. Any dumb bunny should know that. Shouldn’t have to be explained.
Now repeat after me: the S.S. Manhattan encountered 35 meter thick ice in 1969 where today there is open water. Think you draw a line between the dots or do I have to spell it out for you? There was more and *far* thicker ice in the arctic in 1969. Duh!@
Now repeat after me: the S.S. Manhattan encountered 35 meter thick ice in 1969 where today there is open water.
=============================
In one spot, in an ever changing, ever moving, ocean of ice and water. Meaning…..?
@suyts – use your brain – if it was one spot they just would have went around it. They went hundreds of miles out of their way to avoid thick ice – a tanker than could destroy 60 ft thick ice without a tremor. And an escort of icebreakers.
Give it up. You’re belief in SG’s fairy tales makes you look not just foolish, but insane.
Kevin,
If you knew anything about Arctic ice, you would realize that thick ice is caused by the ice piling up against something. The average thickness of the ice in 1958 was six feet.
http://www.real-science.com/arctic-meltdown
SG – Why is the area where the SS Manhattan ran into 35 Meter thick ice now open water? Would that indicate there is more or less ice in the arctic today?
Why can we sail both the northeast and northwest passages today when explorers prior to this have never found either open?
Steve I posted this in “Poster Child Bites Dust”. Wasn’t sure if you saw this Antarctic info yet.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328564.800-sinking-land-shows-east-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-stable.html
Check out Rhamstorf’s “stupid moment” reply to being questioned about the new findings.
Most children can tell you that ice has been coming and going for billions of years. It will be the same long after we are gone. No big deal. At least it wasn’t until the psychopathic, hypothecated, fiat, bailout, color of law, ponzi, consensus, grant system was so lovingly brought into existence.
Go figure.
I might suggest the works of Immanuel Velikovsky for those who can appreciate the occasional wild card.
Anyone that’s been suckered in by SG’s “Arctic Fraud” meme ought to really read: Tempest in an icepot by someone actually knowledgeable on the subject.
It seems that a scant hundred years ago men were sailing where icebreakers dare not venture today. And a thousand years before that? Ten thousand? A million?
We have a few years of data. We think that we are knowledgeable.
Can one examine a single inch of a mile and rightfully claim to know the entire mile?
In OKneels world anything is possible.
The data:
http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g00917_nmc_seaice_extent/index.html