In an article about rising sea levels, scientists contradicted the very base to their argument that man causes global warming : It will happen regardless of any future actions to curb greenhouse gases. source
The page you were looking for no longer exists
D6fer posted on Sep 22, 2007
| views: 451
Comments
-
pickersplock said on Sep 23, 2007....
I get confused easily. How is this, then possible:This is what we heard in back in the 70s:Newsweek’s 1975 Article About The Coming Ice Age
From the now notorious April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek :
The Cooling World
By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.
During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree — a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.
“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras — and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.
Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 — years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases — all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”
Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.
They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
Pardon me, if I'm still skeptical.
-
pickersplock said on Sep 23, 2007....
I also find this confusing. -
D6fer said on Sep 23, 2007....
Scientists agree that we are merely in between ice ages...the last about 10,000 years ago......so even if we were experiencing a warming period, it wouldn't be enough to hold off the next ice age for long.
pickers....none of the libs want to touch this subject any more, because they feel that mmgw has already been established as fact in the court of public opinion.
They are afraid of having to admit that they were wrong about something, or are perfectly comfortable knowing they are perpetuating a lie that seems to give them power.
-
D6fer said on Sep 23, 2007....
pickers....thanks for the link...that was very interesting.....I wonder if bloc would read it....I would love to hear his insightful liberal take on facts!
-
beyondtheveil said on Sep 25, 2007....
d6- What confuses me is the insistence on both sides to bicker incessantly on why its warming. It is warming and there is no doubt that humanity contributes in some measure whether this is the cause or not.
Screw the cause. Why not help the planet any way we can for the environment (not a dirty word whether you think so or not) and for future of our children?
The only truly dirty thing we can do is leave them with a pile of crap to live in.
-
D6fer said on Sep 25, 2007....
I have no problem with keeping the environment clean....where I have a problem is with politicians creating a new way to tax (carbon credits) not only us, but every citizen of every nation....over a bogus reason. -
kelly said on Sep 25, 2007....
"over a bogus reason."Is it bogus? I'm not here to try to convince you global warming is caused by humans, I'm just here to say choose your position carefully because an awful lot may rest on that, and I don't mean taxes. -
D6fer said on Sep 26, 2007....
Read the post Kelly....they contradict themselves. -
kelly said on Sep 27, 2007....
Oh, I get it. When scientists said that global warming was caused by humans you didn't believe them. When they say that global warming will happen despite what humans do you choose to believe them. -
muckpar said on Sep 27, 2007....
When all the ice has melted will it matter what caused it? The ice is melting, photographs taken years apart do not lie. Even if greenhouse gases are not causing it, wouldn't it be prudent and show some common sense by cleaning the air we breathe. For me its a no brainer to switch to clean energy sources. -
pickersplock said on Sep 27, 2007....
Of course, everyone wants clean air! -
D6fer said on Sep 27, 2007....
kelly.....That is the crux to my entire argument.....they say we cant affect it!
Muck.....read the sources....contradicts those pictures!
-
kelly said on Sep 27, 2007....
You missed my point. When they said we could change the climate you chose not to belive them. Now that they say we can't change the climate you choose to believe them. It's a very human thing, to pick out what you want to hear and ignore the rest. -
D6fer said on Sep 27, 2007....
I've been saying we cant change it all along....they are the ones contradicting themselves....did you read the links btw? what do you think? -
kelly said on Sep 27, 2007....
You keep making my point, but whatever.Yes, I read the link. We'll see. The thing about science is that it is a consensus activity. I wasn't aware that the consensus was that we could have no effect on the environment. It seems doubtful given the sizable population. But we'll see. After all, what have we got to lose, right?Actually, Russia stands to be a big gainer in global warming. They will gain productive land from snow and ice melting while we'll be losing productive farm land. So, perhaps you're right. No big deal. -
dyingman said on Sep 28, 2007....
CO2 science.com is sponsored by oil companies.
One must ask "What if global warming is real?"
Waiting could be deadly.
Watch "Inconvenient Truth" to see all teh formerly arable land turning into desert.
Understand that melting ice reflects sunlight where sea water that replaces it absorbs 85%. he warming is going to accelerate. There was a bogus report out that climatologists found that their calculations said the earth wasn't warming as fast as they'd thought.
They were off by one thousandth of a degree. The conservatives didn't mention that part. Listen to BOTH sides of every argument if you want to know when you're being lied to.
-
lambovet said on Sep 28, 2007....
I think it has recently been established that "global warming" is a misnomer. The concern is that we are in a period of 'climate change'. Some parts of the planet are indeed cooling and other parts are warming. What is clear and concerning the scientific community is that many places are experiencing rapid and unpredictable change. That change, natural and cyclical, has been exacerbated by human activity. New laws will do nothing to change mother nature. -
D6fer said on Sep 29, 2007....
I think that the environment movement has been hijacked politically.....the whole mmgw issue....1st they would have us believe that man causes global warming....now as indicated in lambovets view, we are to believe that we are causing the cooling too......the hurricanes....the tornadoes......any disaster....if the public accepts this (seems to already) then the groundwork is set for governmental control and taxation like you've never seen before....get ready for an even larger gap between the haves and have nots.....all excess taxation....inflation....hurts only those on the bottom! -
kelly said on Sep 29, 2007....
First off, global warming is not a misnomer. The evidence is in that the earth is indeed warming up. The only undetermined things are what part people played in it and whether or not we can effect a change.My fervent hope is that in the end science will dictate what we do, not politics. Remember, D6, that just because you think the environmental aspect of this debate has been hijacked by liberals does not mean that they might not be right. in that case YOU would be the one trying to politicize an environmental issue.Liberals need to remember that to get Conservatives on board with this issue they need to frame it in economic terms. No amount of blathering on about "our children" or the good of the planet is going to have any effect. -
D6fer said on Sep 29, 2007....
I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary of mmgw much of it shown in this post....I have heard that there is a growing list of people in the scientific community that feel that man has virtually no effect on the weather....seems that the ones that do often contradict themselves by making the statement that we can't stop these weather patterns or have any effect on them whatsoever. -
pickersplock said on Sep 29, 2007....
1. No one, not even D6fer wants polluted air, land, and water.2. The federal government couldn't even do a decent clean up in New Orleans, how the heck are they going to change the climate? We are much better off getting invoved on a local level.3. These articles speak volumes. -
kelly said on Sep 29, 2007....
"No one, not even D6fer wants polluted air, land, and water. "Perhaps, but if they want clear air, land and water they only want it mildly. People have terrible personal habits that emerge into large effects. For instance, lots of people throw trash right out of their car windows. Presumably they either like living in a trashy environment, they just don't care what their environment looks like or they do care but will only stupidly wonder how things got to be so messy.Most human beings are not naturally forward thinkers. They may not want pollution but they don't have the ability to see the causality of it.Also, those articles don't really speak volumes. You're going to have to explain what you'd like the takeaway message to be. Is it that Al Gore isn't everything he's cracked up to be? Is it that some people are hypocritical? Is it that not all supposedly liberal politicians act as a bloc and are true environmentalists? I hope your point is something more interesting than any of these examples. -
D6fer said on Oct 01, 2007....
Mildly? exactly what do you think that we want kelly? -
kelly said on Oct 02, 2007....
I think what is wanted is what is expedient. -
D6fer said on Oct 02, 2007....
not sure what you mean by that....I can tell you what I don't want.....When Al Gore was running for pres....he said he would remove the damns in Washington state.....we have about 100....and they produce much of the electricity in the west.....he is an idiot -
kelly said on Oct 03, 2007....
Yes, I'm sure Al Gore is an idiot. He's not the only idiot around here, however. Have you ever done any research into how dams screw up the ecosystem? Screwing up the ecosystem is not just a concern for hippies. Everything is connected and sooner or later there is a price to pay.LA gets most of its water from draining it out of the Colorado and the Owens Valleys. Have you seen what it has done to the Owens Valley and the Mono Lake areas? What was once Owens Lake dried up almost completely and became the largest "natural" polluter in the nation due to winds carrying lake bed dust into the atmosphere. Dams tend to take away as much as they give. -
D6fer said on Oct 03, 2007....
Things look pretty good in WA.....salmon population is good.....haven't heard of any "natural pollutants" you describe....The Earth has overcome far worse situations than man has dished out, and has gone in and out of ice ages....all without mans help. -
kelly said on Oct 12, 2007....
"The Earth has overcome far worse situations than man has dished out"So very true. Except that it took thousands of years to bounce back and a huge percentage of all life on the planet went extinct.Don't worry. I'm with you. I don't particularly care if we wipe ourselves out. -
D6fer said on Oct 12, 2007....
well considering that conservatives don't kill their children before they are born.....and you libs are into population control....the way I see it....you guys will be gone 1st! ;p
(I know, I know....we wait until they are 4 or 5 and then drown them in the bath tub....just thought I should beat you to it! )
-
pickersplock said on Oct 12, 2007....
Well, I see someone's feeling frisky tonight! -
kelly said on Oct 18, 2007....
"and you libs are into population control"There is a bit of truth in that. The dolts will probably eventually totally rule this planet. -
D6fer said on Oct 18, 2007....
and the meek shall inhabit the earth.....hmmmmm...doesn't say dolts!
Comment on "Scieintists Contradict themselves over global warming!"
Related Posts:
sheltercrow
posted 6 days ago
| views: 16
|
Since the publication in May of his book, ''Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science,'' Ian Plimer has been the darling of conservative media commentators and the global network of climate change skeptics... read entire post
sheltercrow
posted 1 day ago
| views: 22
|
The global warming denialists have predictably gotten very excited about the emails that were stolen from CRU - Tim Lambert, scienceblogs... read entire post
sheltercrow
posted about 3 hours ago
| views: 9
|
Fact: NASA scientist: Emails do not show that "global warming is a hoax"... read entire post
pickersplock
posted 4 days ago
| views: 67
|
Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper.... read entire post