TobiasTheViking
Resident Viking Autist
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 6,925
frell, been past that LaRouche crap before, but didn't notice it on the 21stcenturysciencetech page.. sorry about that, was not intentional.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
A novel, no less. Not, presumably, by Crichton.
Ah, the anti-democratic conspiracy. There should always be one if you want credibility.
I lived through this period, at UEA, and knew some of the people involved. They were most unhappy at the way their work was misrepresented and sensationalised by the press - and, sadly, by a University administration that liked the publicity.
It wasn't based on a short run of cold winters, of course, these were professional scientists. The press - and novelists - assumed it was. The real story was about improved techniques that could date events more accurately.
In this "similar" scare, what plays the role of the IPCC? What do you see as comparable with the deep concern of so many scientists as expressed today, and over the last couple of decades? How long, in fact, did that "similar" scare last?
Time Magazine's Ice Age Story - Monday, June 24, 1974
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather patter of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval."
Every word of this story sounds very familiar to me.
And one from Newsweek - April 28, 1975
http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf
"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 over-all 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..."
Looks like EVERYTHING causes droughts. It's amazing that anyone has any water anywhere.
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather patter of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval."
Every word of this story sounds very familiar to me.
And one from Newsweek - April 28, 1975
http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf
"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 over-all 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..."
Looks like EVERYTHING causes droughts. It's amazing that anyone has any water anywhere.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
The 30's drought presumably coincides with the Dust Bowl years, so it could be a normal, if infrequent, event. The snowpack is the crucial item, of course. If that reservoir and regulator is lost the whole situation changes all across the South-West US.
Good luck with your crop. What's your livestock - horses?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
It's only been operating for a couple of years so, as the GRACE people make clear, it doesn't say anything about a trend. So fingers crossed, eh?Hm, ok, i must admit that the GRACE measurements are quite annoying, damn you and your pesky facts
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I can't be arsed to go through your cites, mea culpa, but could you tell me what scientists' quotes they contain? Something more than "a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect ...".
With regard to GW, you may have noticed that a large number of scientists have moved beyond suspicion to persuasion over the last few decades, based on observed data and sound science.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
No, don't patronise me.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
0.6 sounds like a small number, but so does .22. Why do you not "believe" 0.6C can make a significant difference?
Have you ever asked yourself exactly what "global temperature" means? It's 11pm in early spring where I'm at, it's an early-autumn morning for a_unique_person. Each location has a temperature, but what is the global temperature right now? Damned if I know how it's worked out, but there is a consensus method.
The 0.6C is not distributed evenly over the day or the year. Nights are warmer, days less so. Winters are warmer, summers less so. This means that glacial melt continues longerer into the dusk, starts earlier in the year and ends later. There are other seasonal effects, earlier springs and later winters, which are easily observable already even in temperate climates.
Bjorn
Off Topic
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,968
I'm an amateur on this, but as far as I know these glaciers have been studied for quite a while. Here's what the US Geological survey is saying about them:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/prof/p1386h/nzealand/nzealand2.html
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
In geological terms, that is the prediction. Very very fast it is, in those terms, and even in ours, a few generations to see significant change.
Maybe you don't, that's not evidence of anything
Positive feedback can be very surprising, perfect example, feedback in a public address system. Out of nowhere, a screeching, piercing sound. That is the danger of it, it appears out of nowhere, it happens very rapidly, it is uncontrollable. If they are saying there are positive feedback problems in the system, I would prick up my ears. For a long time, we have relied on the numerous negative feedback systems that have kept the earth at an incredibly stable temperature for a long time.
The rate of change is remarkable, and fits in exactly with predictions. Think of a glass of iced water. While the ice melts, the glass stays cool, when the ice is gone, the water goes up in temperature.
It is, at the edges. The inner part is now experiencing precipitation, where before it was too cold. Greenland is changing, absolutely.
Not just probably true, it is true. The Albedo of the earth is changing. As it changes a little, the earth absorbs more heat. Then it changes a bit more, the earth absorbs a bit more heat, then it changes more, etc. Positive feed back loop, that accelerates.
Simple matter of chemistry. Also likely to increase release of methane, IIRC, which is a much more potent GHG.
It is increasing. Wild fires in the US in the middle of winter. Even Australia doesn't get that.
Argument from ignorance.
Only increasing, till the warming that has caused the increased precipitation then melts that precipitation. The balance is still that more is melting, the effect of precipitation will only be temporary.
You claim it is melting, but nothing else is. Doesnt' that sound strange to you?
Like the 'skeptical environmentalist', you offer a false dichotomy. All that money that Kyoto costs, could be spent on the poor. And there is father xmas.
It proves what it claims, that these people had a change of mind.
Here is one of the charts of the latest Time poll.
Chart headline says "A Strong Majority Want More Done, ..."
Very 1st question refutes the headline. "Should do more" 35%.
When did 35% become a strong majority?
Bars in graph are no where near proportional in length. 35% bar is about three times as long as the "Is doing the right amount now" 25% bar. It also has the figure 35% placed after the end of the bar instead of within it as the other bar percentages are shown.
If perception is reality, what kind of perception do you think they are hoping to promote?
Apparently, Time thinks their readers are unobservant dolts. Rather insulting, don't you think?
Chart headline says "A Strong Majority Want More Done, ..."
Very 1st question refutes the headline. "Should do more" 35%.
When did 35% become a strong majority?
Bars in graph are no where near proportional in length. 35% bar is about three times as long as the "Is doing the right amount now" 25% bar. It also has the figure 35% placed after the end of the bar instead of within it as the other bar percentages are shown.
If perception is reality, what kind of perception do you think they are hoping to promote?
Apparently, Time thinks their readers are unobservant dolts. Rather insulting, don't you think?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Fortunately, that poll has nothing to do with the actual science of AGW.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
A logical fallacy.
TobiasTheViking
Resident Viking Autist
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 6,925
Agreed, but that is not the perseption they give. Hence alarmist, if they had said "fast in geological terms" then i wouldn't have a problem with it.
Agreed. Though IPCC have come out and said that (A)GW doesn't cause extreme weather.
Now you are being alarmist. I agreed that there are positive and negative feedback loops, why the alarmism.
The rate is remarkable??? hm, i seem to remember a few points in time (last 2000 years) where it has been more remarkable, but i haven't got the info handy, so, tough luck for me.
The way you write that makes it sound like the fact that Greenland is changing is proof of AGW.
And yes, the edges are melting, the middle is increasing, overall the ice on Greenland has been increasing for the last 13 years.
But how big a change will it be? I am agreeing that it will change something, but i want to know how much. Since i don't know, i say "to a certain extend"
Yes, but my question was "How much, how fast, with what probability" which you didn't answer. They said "may", i just pointed out they said "may". I agree organic material incased in ice will rot and release CO2. But they don't say how much, maybe all they are talking about is 2 mamoths a year, and in that case the difference is neglible.
Hence my original question, how much, how fast, what probability.
So, now every wild fire is caused by global warming? sorry, that is not how it works. There may be an increase caused by global warming, and there may be an increase caued by many other things.
If someone came out and said "we have an increase of X% caused by global warming" and the data was verified, then it would be interesting, what happens right now is that every wild fire is contributed to GW, which is clearly false, and unless i can get some credible data on what the increase caused solely by GW is, i can't use the simple fact of a wild fire for anything.
And the same goes for drought.
WHAT? i didn't say it was false, i said "i don't know", i admit my ignorance on the subject, and i don't try to use it to prove my point, then how on earth can it be "Argument from ignorance"?
And i have yet to see any data saying that the melting haven't gone on for the last 2000+ years, in which case all GW has done/might have done, is increase it(which, granted, would still be bad)
That is NOT what the article said, the article said NO sea ice in 2060. Do you agree that that is false?
If you agree, then do you agree that it is alarmist to make that claim?
If you don't agree, then can you give me some study that has been accepted that agrees that by 2060(a further heat increase of 0.4C from now, or something like that) there will be no sea ice, AT ALL on earth?
The north pole has been melting for many many many years.
I didn't claim nothing else was melting, i agreed that certain areas of both the southpole and greenland was melting.
I've also later agreed that the icepole has since 2002 been melting on an overall scale(we have yet to see if that is a trend, or just an odd fluctuation).
where did i claim nothing besides the northpole was melting?
So i can't have the opinion that the money could be used better?
sorry, what? i'm not allowed to have an opinion. I clearly stated that "i think", that it was an opinion.
Yes, and i agreed with that, but it still doesn't prove that the drought in Australia is caused by GW.
As you replied somewhere else "Fortunately, that poll has nothing to do with the actual science of AGW." or in this case "Fortunately, that change of mind has nothing to do with the actual science of AGW."
Sincerely
Tobias
Well, I don't know. This is Time and Newsweek - national magazines. If the question is: Was there really a global cooling scare in the 70s?, then I suggest this is evidence to support that there was.
The original topic of this thread had to do with Time's cover story. In light of what you've read in the PDFs I posted above, does Time have any credibility on this subject? The rhetoric used is exactly the same that we see currently regarding GW and AGW. Should we be skeptical?
Yes, I have noticed that a large number of scientists have moved beyond suspicion with regard to GW. That has nothing to do with whether Time has any credibility on the subject.
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
Then stop proving the statement true.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Was the global-cooling scare in any way similar to the current concerns about GW? Global-cooling was aired on slow-news days for a couple of years, GW is news and has been increasingly so for decades. The particular piece quoted in the OP is alarmist crapola, no question, but that does not - obviously - mean that GW is a media-created scare, like GM-foods making us all grow horns. There was a nine-day wonder about the Next Ice Age back during the Cold War (is that significant, perhaps?
) but it was not similar to GW.Of course we should be sceptical, that's what our brains are for, but the referenced article in the OP has no relevance to GW and much relevance to the crappy way science is handled by hack columnists, aka failed writers.
I, for my sins and failings, have spent a lot of time in the company of journalists and editors and credibility, sadly, is the least of their concerns. National, local, sectional - I had a friend on the Vintner's Times (?), effectively the house-mag of the UK licenced trade, some good times were had ... I digress. Wander, even.
The Next Ice Age was a scare. GW isn't. The way the press handles such issues - GM foods as another instance - remains the same. The only reason the 9-day wonder of global-cooling (which, by the way, most climate scientists associated with sulphate plumes reflecting sunlight but in those days there wasn't the satellite surveillance we have now, it was all theoretical) is raised as similar to GW, rather than GM or cancer-causing power-lines, is because it was about the weather. Nobody escapes the weather. Well, not the masses, anyway.
Elind
Philosopher
Tell me more. I've lived in Florida for over 20 years. I'd love to be convinced it's all my imagination, or coincidence, that the winds seem to be stronger. Probably it's just one of those statistical glitches that will level out once I'm dead. Right?
Canada Mints
New Blood
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Messages
- 7
Hey my first post!
I thought the posts in here would be more skeptical, I'm a bit surprised to be honest. People's posts about the changes in trees or winds or water supplies where they live over their lifetime as evidence of GW are simply anecdotal. Thats not good science.
Doesn't something as big as climate change have to looked at globally over a very long time? Is there ever a time when the climate isn't changing, either warmer or cooler?
Even if the planet is warming (and I guess we have a little over the last 100 years, but even that is arguable) that does not prove it is because of the addition of anthropogenic CO2......it does not prove causality.
And anyone relying on models is crazy. Models are only as good as the people building them and the data entered.
Lastly, Kyoto is absolutely a waste of time and money. There is no less pollution. Rich countries just buy up CO2 credits; there is even a trading market, its simply wealth redistribution.
I thought the posts in here would be more skeptical, I'm a bit surprised to be honest. People's posts about the changes in trees or winds or water supplies where they live over their lifetime as evidence of GW are simply anecdotal. Thats not good science.
Doesn't something as big as climate change have to looked at globally over a very long time? Is there ever a time when the climate isn't changing, either warmer or cooler?
Even if the planet is warming (and I guess we have a little over the last 100 years, but even that is arguable) that does not prove it is because of the addition of anthropogenic CO2......it does not prove causality.
And anyone relying on models is crazy. Models are only as good as the people building them and the data entered.
Lastly, Kyoto is absolutely a waste of time and money. There is no less pollution. Rich countries just buy up CO2 credits; there is even a trading market, its simply wealth redistribution.