# Polar Ice and Iceland **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 7, 2009, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190 "2009-01-07T04:20:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/1 "2009-01-07T04:20:56Z")
Here is a graph which purports to show the prevalence of polar ice at the coast of Iceland over the last millenium or so: [http://www.grisda.org/origins/images/10058-1h.gif](http://www.grisda.org/origins/images/10058-1h.gif) I believe that the graph is probably correct, mainly because (1) I can’t think of any reason why the author – HD Tkachuck – would falsify it; and (2) it’s consistent with popular beliefs about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. I realize that the paper has been produced by an organization which apparently has a religious agenda. However, in my opinion, this does not make the graph presumptively invalid. Particularly since it’s hard to see how someone’s religious agenda would make them strongly want to deny the little ice age when it did happen or claim it happened when it didn’t. The graph apparently is reproduced from a work by Hubert Lamb, who is apparently something of an authority. Granted, one should be skeptical of papers such as this, but still, I think the graph is probably correct. Anyway, the question for debate is this: Does anyone seriously dispute that the graph is probably correct? If so, what should the corrected graph look like and why? ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/2 "2009-01-07T04:47:18Z")
What the hell does that graph purport to show? Iceland is sub-polar and as far as I know has no oceanic ice, even in winter. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/3 "2009-01-07T05:24:20Z")
Hubert Lamb’s hypothesis of a Medieval Warm Period is regarded as suspect by modern climatologists, who believe their data is better (Lamb, they say, was working indirectly from biological data). At any rate, Lamb claimed that Iceland was surrounded by sea ice in 1695. The article as a whole is a rather belligerent discussion of the Little Ice Age, as if someone were arguing that there had been one, followed by this conclusion: > [@](#): > > In conclusion there is ample evidence that a significant cooling occurred for several centuries starting around 1450 AD. This cooling caused significant changes in the distribution of plant and animal life and in the way man responded to the environment. The causes for this cooling may have derived from a combination of changes in the energy output of the sun and changes in the atmosphere of the earth which resulted from volcanic activity that reduced the amount of energy absorbed. > This uncertainty as to the cause for this cooling which so markedly affected life should warn those who demand that the Earth responds only to massive (forceful) events. Very subtle changes in the factors determining climate during the Little Ice Age occurred. One wonders how much greater they need be to cause a true ice age. Tkachuck is, of course, on the GRI staff, and is a Creationist. His argument is really against anthropogenic global warming, and his unstated conclusion is that AGW proponents have no idea what’s going on with the climate. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/4 "2009-01-07T07:08:20Z")
So the [sea ice is growing](http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834) again. Is this going to confuse the polar bears into wondering too far out onto the ice? ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/5 "2009-01-07T08:44:16Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Granted, one should be skeptical of papers such as this, but still, I think the graph is probably correct. You’ve rejected the work of thousands of scientists who publish their findings in peer reviewed journals, the conclusions of the IPCC and dozens of scientific societies, and the scientific positions of most of the countries in the developed world on this issue, yet you’re going to uncritically accept this graph from a non-peer-reviewed source where it’s sandwiched between articles on creationism and intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and geology before and after the biblical flood? If your source is publishing that crap, what makes you think this will be any more valid? > [@](#): > > Anyway, the question for debate is this: > > Does anyone seriously dispute that the graph is probably correct? If so, what should the corrected graph look like and why? I would bet that the graph is an accurate representation of the data, especially if it’s reproduced from Lamb’s work. I would also bet that the interpretation of the graph is lacking in scientific rigor, and I would guess (less certain, but still pretty likely) that the interpretations of the graph presented on that site are at odds with Lamb’s interpretations. Any particular reason you posted only the graph rather than the entire article? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/6 "2009-01-07T12:09:38Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > you’re going to uncritically accept this graph from a non-peer-reviewed source where it’s sandwiched between articles on creationism and intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and geology before and after the biblical flood? No, I’m not uncritically accepting the graph. I’m (critically) taking the position that it’s probably correct. Why? Because – as far as I know – nobody seriously disputes that the Medieval Warm Period took place or that the Little Ice Age took place. Many warmists seem to claim that those events were limited to Europe and/or the North Atlantic region. However, Iceland is clearly located in the North Atlantic. Not only that, but I cannot think of any reason why a creationist would be incentivitzed to exaggerate the amount of sea ice around Iceland during the Little Ice Age. As far as “rejecting” the work of “thousands” of scientists, that’s a question for another thread. > [@](#): > > I would bet that the graph is an accurate representation of the data, especially if it’s reproduced from Lamb’s work. Well there ya go. > [@](#): > > I would guess (less certain, but still pretty likely) that the interpretations of the graph presented on that site are at odds with Lamb’s interpretations. In your view, what is the correct interpretation of the graph, and how does Tkachuck misinterpret it? > [@](#): > > Any particular reason you posted only the graph rather than the entire article? Yes, I was tired. I linked to the entire article in the GQ thread. Here is the GQ thread: > **[Global warming question(s)](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=500433)** > > Though I know that any question about Global Warming generally sparks a debate I’m hoping for GQ style answers here. My question has to do with retreating ice at the poles, especially the North Pole, and in Greenland. I was reading an article... Here is the article: > **[I think we need more research on that...](https://www.grisda.org/404-error)** ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/7 "2009-01-07T12:14:27Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > Tkachuck is, of course, on the GRI staff, and is a Creationist. His argument is really against anthropogenic global warming, and his unstated conclusion is that AGW proponents have no idea what’s going on with the climate. Given that the article was published in 1983, I think maybe you are reading too much in to the article. Anyway, do you dispute the claim about ice and Iceland? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/8 "2009-01-07T13:37:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Even from the highest mountains, open water could not be seen in all directions (Figure 1h) (Lamb 1977, p. 453). There’s enough data available to construct a twenty year boxcar average on sea ice at Iceland over the past thousand years? That’s amazing!!! ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/9 "2009-01-07T15:58:04Z")
I like Jell-O. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/10 "2009-01-07T23:52:54Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Because – as far as I know – nobody seriously disputes that the Medieval Warm Period took place or that the Little Ice Age took place. Many warmists seem to claim that those events were limited to Europe and/or the North Atlantic region. However, Iceland is clearly located in the North Atlantic. I’m confused then as to what the argument is here. If is agreed that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were quite pronounced in the North Atlantic region, then wouldn’t you expect to see a plot that looks like that? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/11 "2009-01-07T23:56:22Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > So the [sea ice is growing](http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834) again. Is this going to confuse the polar bears into wondering too far out onto the ice? Sea ice grows and shrinks with the seasonal cycle. And, the anomaly too is expected to grow and shrink with the seasonal cycle because the more dramatic effects of the shrinking sea ice are seen in summer. There is also year-to-year variability but the general trend has been downward, with the summer 2007 minimum being easily the lowest recorded and summer 2008 being in 2nd place. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/12 "2009-01-08T00:30:07Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Given that the article was published in 1983, I think maybe you are reading too much in to the article. > > Anyway, do you dispute the claim about ice and Iceland? Yes I do. Lamb’s book, which can, in part, be found [here](http://books.google.com/books?id=-lJ6XesnYYAC&dq=lamb+1977+climate&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA332,M1), labels the graph in the article “Average number of weeks a year with drift ice at the coasts of Iceland…(After KOCH, 1945)” Koch’s article is not online, but there are several references to it, including [this fairly deep analysis](http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr05-02.pdf) (warning: PDF), which indicates that his methodology is largely unknown, and seems to mostly rely on visual records. The analysis is plainly restricted to whether sea ice east of Greenland could be seen at the coast of Iceland. I can’t see how this is the same as “polar ice” – it’s not even part of the Greenland Ice Sheet. The labeling of the graph is inaccurate and misleading. This bein ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/13 "2009-01-08T01:24:57Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > Yes I do. Lamb’s book, which can, in part, be found [here](http://books.google.com/books?id=-lJ6XesnYYAC&dq=lamb+1977+climate&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA332,M1), labels the graph in the article “Average number of weeks a year with drift ice at the coasts of Iceland…(After KOCH, 1945)” Lamb himself seems to classify the ice in question as “polar ice”. From your link: > [@](#): > > On the fringe of the Arctic, particularly in the Greenland-Iceland-Spitsbergen sector, there have been great changes in the extent of the polar sea ice in the twentieth century. . . . In the long recorded history of the ice affecting the coasts of Iceland . . . . > [@](#): > > I can’t see how this is the same as “polar ice” – it’s not even part of the Greenland Ice Sheet. The labeling of the graph is inaccurate and misleading. So you are saying Lamb was wrong to (apparently) classify this ice as “polar ice”? How would you define “polar ice”? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/14 "2009-01-08T01:31:47Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > I’m confused then as to what the argument is here. If is agreed that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were quite pronounced in the North Atlantic region, then wouldn’t you expect to see a plot that looks like that? Sure. It seems that people are challenging the graph not because there’s anything particularly objectionable about it, but because it’s the work of an apparent creationist. Actually, it kinda shows how silly much of the global warming debate has become. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/15 "2009-01-08T01:47:58Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Sure. It seems that people are challenging the graph not because there’s anything particularly objectionable about it, but because it’s the work of an apparent creationist. > > Actually, it kinda shows how silly much of the global warming debate has become. First off, your side is the silly one. Resorting to every moonbat loony you can find instead of the vast, appropriately trained scientific community. It’s beyond pathetic. Second, Creationists have proven by being creationists that they are willing to ignore science to promote their dogma. I don’t really have a problem marginalizing creationist scientists. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/16 "2009-01-08T01:58:32Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Sure. It seems that people are challenging the graph not because there’s anything particularly objectionable about it, but because it’s the work of an apparent creationist. But it’s **not** the work of a creationist, or is **KOCH** , 1945, a creationist? We’ve no evidence either way. The claim to have decent data over such a long period in such a remote part of the world is extraordinary. As **Nametag** points out, the providence of the numbers isn’t as clear as it might be, or as Tkachuck would have us believe. Plus, as **JShore** mentions, the numbers are kinda-sorta what you’d expect, even without data to back it up. So what we have here is small, dubious potatoes of little import. With stakes such as that, there’s little point in objecting to the author’s religious background. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/17 "2009-01-08T02:06:13Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > But it’s **not** the work of a creationist, or is **KOCH** , 1945, a creationist? We’ve no evidence either way. Of course I am referring to Tkachuck. For context, you might take a look at the GQ thread: [Global warming question(s) - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=500433) > [@](#): > > The claim to have decent data over such a long period in such a remote part of the world is extraordinary. I don’t think it’s extraordinary. Worthy of skepticism? Yes. But not outrageous. Especially given that it would appear to be consistent with other records. > [@](#): > > there’s little point in objecting to the author’s religious background. This I agree with. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/18 "2009-01-08T05:35:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Creationists have proven by being creationists that they are willing to ignore science to promote their dogma. Do you agree with this? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/19 "2009-01-08T11:53:15Z")
> [@Lamar\_Mundane](#): > > Do you agree with this? I don’t really know, but I would imagine that there are some creationists who let their religious views foul up whatever scientific thinking they do and some creationists who do not. If it turns out that Jim Hansen is a creationist, it would probably have little or no impact on my assessment of his work. Certainly if I were debating Jim Hansen’s claims, I would point out exactly why I think his claims are wrong. As opposed to simply saying “Well, he’s a creationist. Case closed.” ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190/20 "2009-01-08T15:01:34Z")
Jell-O is delicious. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polar-ice-and-iceland/480190.md?page=2)