Friday, June 27, 2008

Ronald Bailey North Pole Melting Ice Hype 2000

Back in 2000, Reason writer/columnist Ronald Bailey wrote of the hype. What does Mr. We're All Global Warmers, Now have to say, now, about 8 years later, after his conversion in August 2005 to acceptance of something - global warming is happening and man is contributing?

We found out about his change of heart in 2007 and sought to provide balance

Now we find this mini-critique of Bailey clip below...

Interesting to find out what Bailey is writing now...

we're still trying to find out whether Bailey attended any United Nations Climate Change symposiums out of the country just prior to August 2005. After yeares of writing, well such books as, well do a search, now what's he writing...

Ron Bailey, science writer for the libertarian Reason magazine says not so fast. Ron points to lots of contrary facts that argue for a less apocalyptic view of future climate history...

Cause now, the North Pole is supposedly to be ice-free by this summer and/or September, 2008

Net the Truth Online

North Pole May Be Ice Free for First Time This SummerAalok Mehta aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen
National Geographic News
June 20, 2008
Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.

North Pole ice 'may disappear by September'
By Paul Eccleston
Last Updated: 2:01pm BST 27/06/2008

Have your say Read comments

Ice at the North Pole may disappear completely within the next few months for the first time in 20,000 years.

Arctic ice melting 'faster than predicted'
Arctic ice 'could be gone in five years'
Arctic sea ice 'melts to all-time low'
Arctic sea ice is now retreating so quickly that scientists say there is now a 50-50 chance that it will have gone completely by September.

August 29, 2000 2:40 PM
Alarm on Front Page, Recant on Back
The New York Times backtracks.
By Ronald Bailey

Santa and his elves don't have to panic after all, according to today's New York Times. This is a switch from two Saturdays ago, when the Times breathlessly warned readers on its front page that the North Pole was ice-free for the first time in 50 million years. Even as late as yesterday, a Times lead editorial cited its own alarmist story about finding a "patch of open ocean at the North Pole where the ice would normally be six to nine feet deep" to justify favoring Al Gore's "more assertive approach" to global warming...

...The North-Pole-is-melting story is an all-too-typical example of environmental-alarmist reporting in the Times and other papers. The infamous Limits to Growth report, the Fenton Communications-generated Alar scare, the stories that the Ozone Hole is allegedly ready to open up over Kennebunkport — all were reported on the front page, while more sober assessments based on real scientific data appear later, on the back pages where readers tend to overlook or discount it.

It's no wonder that this continuing credulous imbalance in reporting on environmental issues has got the public spooked. But then again, one can't help wondering sometimes if maybe that's the point...

Ice has melted at North Pole site
Some say global warming to blame
By John Noble Willford, Saturday August 19, 2000


The North Pole is melting.

The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday. At least for the time being, an ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened at the very top of the world, something that presumably never before has been seen by human beings and is more evidence that global warming may be real and affecting climate.

The last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago.

"It was totally unexpected," said Dr. James J. McCarthy, an oceanographer, director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University and the co-leader of a group working for the United Nationssponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control. The panel is studying the potential environmental and economic consequences of marked climate change.

On Bailey

Hmm... "We're All Global Warmers Now: Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place" - "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up. All data sets—satellite, surface, and balloon—have been pointing to rising global temperatures. In fact, they all have had upward pointing arrows for nearly a decade, but now all of the data sets are in closer agreement due to some adjustments being published in three new articles in Science today.

People who have doubted predictions of catastrophic global warming (and that includes me) have long cited the satellite data series derived by climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). That data set showed a positive trend of 0.088 degrees centigrade per decade until recently. On a straight line extrapolation that trend implied warming of less than 1.0 degree centigrade by 2100.

A new article in Science by researchers Carl Mears and Frank Wentz from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) identified a problem with how the satellites drifted over time, so that a slight but spurious cooling trend was introduced into the data. When this drift is taken into account, the temperature trend increases by an additional 0.035 degrees per decade, raising the UAH per-decade increase to 0.123 degrees centigrade. Christy points out that this adjustment is still within his and Spencer's +/- 0.5 margin of error. What's the upshot? Although reluctant to make straight-line extrapolations, Christy notes in an e-mail, "The previous linear extrapolation indicated a temperature of +0.9 C +/- 0.5 C in 2100, the new data indicate a temperature of +1.2 +/- 0.5 C." (Ronald Bailey, Reason)

I must admit that Bailey's article had me reread Mears and Wentz out of concern that I had misunderstood or not read it thoroughly. While that inevitably does happen I am pleased to say this is not one of those occasions [as Spencer's own piece makes clear below]. The methodological error handling tropical diurnal adjustments is not in this paper and readers should not confuse the two as Bailey appears to have done.

Search results produced

More finds

No comments: