Global warming now causing mountains to grow taller

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
No longer content to simply raise temperatures, increase hurricanes, wipe out coastal cities, inconvience polar bears, destroy agriculture, and inflict us with Al Gore in a movie, now global warming is going to turn Des Moines into Kathmandu. News like this fills me with such dread that I feel like I should go plant a tree or something - of course now more trees increases global warming also. Oh crap.


link
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
The global warming is coming to get us!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Ah, mocking things you don't understand. Such a proud tradition among the C students. But don't worry, like most facets of reality, this one too can be driven away by closing your eyes and chanting "There's no such thing as global warming, there's no such thing as global warming" and then hopping in your SUV and enjoying some 12 mpg, overcompensating excitement!
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ah, mocking things you don't understand. Such a proud tradition among the C students. But don't worry, like most facets of reality, this one too can be driven away by closing your eyes and chanting "There's no such thing as global warming, there's no such thing as global warming" and then hopping in your SUV and enjoying some 12 mpg, overcompensating excitement!

I guess that blindly listening to the mass media who cares more about profit and their own political agendas than the truth is much better than doing some actual research on the subject, right?

I've said this millions of times, but stupid people like you just don't seem to get it. I am very environmentally friendly, in many ways. Probably moreso than you are. However, I have not seen enough evidence to persuade me that global warming is a direct results of human activity. I'm sure we contribute, but I don't see any conclusive evidence that says that we are directly causing major temperature shifts. If you would do some actual research, you would find that there is actually a lot of evidence that humans may not be responsible. Again, I do my part and act as if we are responsible, but I still don't believe that we are. I act because I believe that we should respect the environment as a whole, not because some BS crackpot politician has a political agenda.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ah, mocking things you don't understand. Such a proud tradition among the C students. But don't worry, like most facets of reality, this one too can be driven away by closing your eyes and chanting "There's no such thing as global warming, there's no such thing as global warming" and then hopping in your SUV and enjoying some 12 mpg, overcompensating excitement!

I guess that blindly listening to the mass media who cares more about profit and their own political agendas than the truth is much better than doing some actual research on the subject, right?

I've said this millions of times, but stupid people like you just don't seem to get it. I am very environmentally friendly, in many ways. Probably moreso than you are. However, I have not seen enough evidence to persuade me that global warming is a direct results of human activity. I'm sure we contribute, but I don't see any conclusive evidence that says that we are directly causing major temperature shifts. If you would do some actual research, you would find that there is actually a lot of evidence that humans may not be responsible. Again, I do my part and act as if we are responsible, but I still don't believe that we are. I act because I believe that we should respect the environment as a whole, not because some BS crackpot politician has a political agenda.

Who's listening to the media? I'm going by what almost every major, peer-reviewed study on the subject says. The majority of evidence suggest you are wrong and I'm right...forgive me if agreeing with the vast majority of experts on the subject makes me "stupid", but I just don't see it. And honesty, the fact that you are "environmentally friendly" is great and all...but it doesn't make your opinion any more valid.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ah, mocking things you don't understand. Such a proud tradition among the C students. But don't worry, like most facets of reality, this one too can be driven away by closing your eyes and chanting "There's no such thing as global warming, there's no such thing as global warming" and then hopping in your SUV and enjoying some 12 mpg, overcompensating excitement!

I guess that blindly listening to the mass media who cares more about profit and their own political agendas than the truth is much better than doing some actual research on the subject, right?

I've said this millions of times, but stupid people like you just don't seem to get it. I am very environmentally friendly, in many ways. Probably moreso than you are. However, I have not seen enough evidence to persuade me that global warming is a direct results of human activity. I'm sure we contribute, but I don't see any conclusive evidence that says that we are directly causing major temperature shifts. If you would do some actual research, you would find that there is actually a lot of evidence that humans may not be responsible. Again, I do my part and act as if we are responsible, but I still don't believe that we are. I act because I believe that we should respect the environment as a whole, not because some BS crackpot politician has a political agenda.

Who's listening to the media? I'm going by what almost every major, peer-reviewed study on the subject says. The majority of evidence suggest you are wrong and I'm right...forgive me if agreeing with the vast majority of experts on the subject makes me "stupid", but I just don't see it. And honesty, the fact that you are "environmentally friendly" is great and all...but it doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

I can give numerous examples of times when the consensus has been 100% wrong. Just because the big business magazines and journals say it is true doesn't make their (or your) oppinion any more valid either. My point is that there is enough conflicting information out there that a person cannot reasonably assert that global warming is true enough to the extent that they would mock people who don't believe it.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
and I'm sorry for calling you stupid. That was stupid of me. I got caught up in the moment.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
and I'm sorry for calling you stupid. That was stupid of me. I got caught up in the moment.

No problem...I'm sure you weren't a C student either ;)
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: XZeroII
and I'm sorry for calling you stupid. That was stupid of me. I got caught up in the moment.

No problem...I'm sure you weren't a C student either ;)

lol. Depends what grade you are referring to ;)
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
XZeroII, the problem is that in peer-reviewed studies, science has proven that humans are responsible for a large spike in CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, and as a direct result an increase in global temperature. I would challenge you to find a peer-reviewed study that says anything to the contrary.

We have atmospheric CO2 data going back over 100 million years. That's before there were humans, and the data covers several ice ages and warming/cooling cycles. Never in the history of our planet have CO2 levels been as high as they are today during any single warming/cooling cycle. Why anyone would argue against the blunt logic that humans, through centuries of burning fossil fuels, burning forests for agriculture, reducing our planet's biomass through the destruction of habitat, and increasing all our greenhouse-gas emitting activities at a geometric rate, would not cause global warming?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ah, mocking things you don't understand. Such a proud tradition among the C students. But don't worry, like most facets of reality, this one too can be driven away by closing your eyes and chanting "There's no such thing as global warming, there's no such thing as global warming" and then hopping in your SUV and enjoying some 12 mpg, overcompensating excitement!

I guess that blindly listening to the mass media who cares more about profit and their own political agendas than the truth is much better than doing some actual research on the subject, right?

I've said this millions of times, but stupid people like you just don't seem to get it. I am very environmentally friendly, in many ways. Probably moreso than you are. However, I have not seen enough evidence to persuade me that global warming is a direct results of human activity. I'm sure we contribute, but I don't see any conclusive evidence that says that we are directly causing major temperature shifts. If you would do some actual research, you would find that there is actually a lot of evidence that humans may not be responsible. Again, I do my part and act as if we are responsible, but I still don't believe that we are. I act because I believe that we should respect the environment as a whole, not because some BS crackpot politician has a political agenda.

Who's listening to the media? I'm going by what almost every major, peer-reviewed study on the subject says. The majority of evidence suggest you are wrong and I'm right...forgive me if agreeing with the vast majority of experts on the subject makes me "stupid", but I just don't see it. And honesty, the fact that you are "environmentally friendly" is great and all...but it doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

I am sure you have read every peer reviewed study in its fullest form right? :disgust:

If these studies are so conclusive, why cant they explain the same cycle the earth has gone through already? Well before humans and their fossil fuel burning factories and power plants wrecked the planet?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ah, mocking things you don't understand. Such a proud tradition among the C students. But don't worry, like most facets of reality, this one too can be driven away by closing your eyes and chanting "There's no such thing as global warming, there's no such thing as global warming" and then hopping in your SUV and enjoying some 12 mpg, overcompensating excitement!

I guess that blindly listening to the mass media who cares more about profit and their own political agendas than the truth is much better than doing some actual research on the subject, right?

I've said this millions of times, but stupid people like you just don't seem to get it. I am very environmentally friendly, in many ways. Probably moreso than you are. However, I have not seen enough evidence to persuade me that global warming is a direct results of human activity. I'm sure we contribute, but I don't see any conclusive evidence that says that we are directly causing major temperature shifts. If you would do some actual research, you would find that there is actually a lot of evidence that humans may not be responsible. Again, I do my part and act as if we are responsible, but I still don't believe that we are. I act because I believe that we should respect the environment as a whole, not because some BS crackpot politician has a political agenda.

Who's listening to the media? I'm going by what almost every major, peer-reviewed study on the subject says. The majority of evidence suggest you are wrong and I'm right...forgive me if agreeing with the vast majority of experts on the subject makes me "stupid", but I just don't see it. And honesty, the fact that you are "environmentally friendly" is great and all...but it doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

I am sure you have read every peer reviewed study in its fullest form right? :disgust:

If these studies are so conclusive, why cant they explain the same cycle the earth has gone through already? Well before humans and their fossil fuel burning factories and power plants wrecked the planet?

Warming/cooling cycles are not being argued; what is being argued is that greenhouse gas concentrations have never hit their current levels naturally during any previous cycles over the long history of the Earth going back at least 100 million years. And then all of a sudden we have record levels of CO2 in our atmosphere during the same time period that the human species is experience geometric population growth and natural resource usage.

No other species that has inhabited the earth has burned fossil fuels, and nearly all species existed during their reign in a natural balance with the environment. We are the only species that has not found that balance and is burning large quantities of fossil fuels.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ah, mocking things you don't understand. Such a proud tradition among the C students. But don't worry, like most facets of reality, this one too can be driven away by closing your eyes and chanting "There's no such thing as global warming, there's no such thing as global warming" and then hopping in your SUV and enjoying some 12 mpg, overcompensating excitement!

I guess that blindly listening to the mass media who cares more about profit and their own political agendas than the truth is much better than doing some actual research on the subject, right?

I've said this millions of times, but stupid people like you just don't seem to get it. I am very environmentally friendly, in many ways. Probably moreso than you are. However, I have not seen enough evidence to persuade me that global warming is a direct results of human activity. I'm sure we contribute, but I don't see any conclusive evidence that says that we are directly causing major temperature shifts. If you would do some actual research, you would find that there is actually a lot of evidence that humans may not be responsible. Again, I do my part and act as if we are responsible, but I still don't believe that we are. I act because I believe that we should respect the environment as a whole, not because some BS crackpot politician has a political agenda.

Who's listening to the media? I'm going by what almost every major, peer-reviewed study on the subject says. The majority of evidence suggest you are wrong and I'm right...forgive me if agreeing with the vast majority of experts on the subject makes me "stupid", but I just don't see it. And honesty, the fact that you are "environmentally friendly" is great and all...but it doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

I am sure you have read every peer reviewed study in its fullest form right? :disgust:

If these studies are so conclusive, why cant they explain the same cycle the earth has gone through already? Well before humans and their fossil fuel burning factories and power plants wrecked the planet?

Warming/cooling cycles are not being argued; what is being argued is that greenhouse gas concentrations have never hit their current levels naturally during any previous cycles over the long history of the Earth going back at least 100 million years. And then all of a sudden we have record levels of CO2 in our atmosphere during the same time period that the human species is experience geometric population growth and natural resource usage.

Why is it that 20 years ago, all the major peer-reviewed studies led to a scientific consensus that we were experiencing global cooling?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ah, mocking things you don't understand. Such a proud tradition among the C students. But don't worry, like most facets of reality, this one too can be driven away by closing your eyes and chanting "There's no such thing as global warming, there's no such thing as global warming" and then hopping in your SUV and enjoying some 12 mpg, overcompensating excitement!

I guess that blindly listening to the mass media who cares more about profit and their own political agendas than the truth is much better than doing some actual research on the subject, right?

I've said this millions of times, but stupid people like you just don't seem to get it. I am very environmentally friendly, in many ways. Probably moreso than you are. However, I have not seen enough evidence to persuade me that global warming is a direct results of human activity. I'm sure we contribute, but I don't see any conclusive evidence that says that we are directly causing major temperature shifts. If you would do some actual research, you would find that there is actually a lot of evidence that humans may not be responsible. Again, I do my part and act as if we are responsible, but I still don't believe that we are. I act because I believe that we should respect the environment as a whole, not because some BS crackpot politician has a political agenda.

Who's listening to the media? I'm going by what almost every major, peer-reviewed study on the subject says. The majority of evidence suggest you are wrong and I'm right...forgive me if agreeing with the vast majority of experts on the subject makes me "stupid", but I just don't see it. And honesty, the fact that you are "environmentally friendly" is great and all...but it doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

I am sure you have read every peer reviewed study in its fullest form right? :disgust:

If these studies are so conclusive, why cant they explain the same cycle the earth has gone through already? Well before humans and their fossil fuel burning factories and power plants wrecked the planet?

Warming/cooling cycles are not being argued; what is being argued is that greenhouse gas concentrations have never hit their current levels naturally during any previous cycles over the long history of the Earth going back at least 100 million years. And then all of a sudden we have record levels of CO2 in our atmosphere during the same time period that the human species is experience geometric population growth and natural resource usage.

Why is it that 20 years ago, all the major peer-reviewed studies led to a scientific consensus that we were experiencing global cooling?

Why are you looking at research that is decades old? What's next, are you going to cite medieval church documents to prove the sun goes round the Earth?
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ah, mocking things you don't understand. Such a proud tradition among the C students. But don't worry, like most facets of reality, this one too can be driven away by closing your eyes and chanting "There's no such thing as global warming, there's no such thing as global warming" and then hopping in your SUV and enjoying some 12 mpg, overcompensating excitement!

I guess that blindly listening to the mass media who cares more about profit and their own political agendas than the truth is much better than doing some actual research on the subject, right?

I've said this millions of times, but stupid people like you just don't seem to get it. I am very environmentally friendly, in many ways. Probably moreso than you are. However, I have not seen enough evidence to persuade me that global warming is a direct results of human activity. I'm sure we contribute, but I don't see any conclusive evidence that says that we are directly causing major temperature shifts. If you would do some actual research, you would find that there is actually a lot of evidence that humans may not be responsible. Again, I do my part and act as if we are responsible, but I still don't believe that we are. I act because I believe that we should respect the environment as a whole, not because some BS crackpot politician has a political agenda.

Who's listening to the media? I'm going by what almost every major, peer-reviewed study on the subject says. The majority of evidence suggest you are wrong and I'm right...forgive me if agreeing with the vast majority of experts on the subject makes me "stupid", but I just don't see it. And honesty, the fact that you are "environmentally friendly" is great and all...but it doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

I am sure you have read every peer reviewed study in its fullest form right? :disgust:

If these studies are so conclusive, why cant they explain the same cycle the earth has gone through already? Well before humans and their fossil fuel burning factories and power plants wrecked the planet?

Warming/cooling cycles are not being argued; what is being argued is that greenhouse gas concentrations have never hit their current levels naturally during any previous cycles over the long history of the Earth going back at least 100 million years. And then all of a sudden we have record levels of CO2 in our atmosphere during the same time period that the human species is experience geometric population growth and natural resource usage.

Why is it that 20 years ago, all the major peer-reviewed studies led to a scientific consensus that we were experiencing global cooling?

Why are you looking at research that is decades old? What's next, are you going to cite medieval church documents to prove the sun goes round the Earth?

20 years is that long ago in the scope of the world? You yourself said we have records going back 100 million years. Which one is it going to be?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
I said 'research', not 'data'. Data over the last few decades or 100 million years hasn't changed; interpretation of the data has.

Again, I'll trust hundreds of PhDs in peer-reviewed journals around the world over the opinion of some random internet Joe.

Thanks for playing.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I said 'research', not 'data'. Data over the last few decades or 100 million years hasn't changed; interpretation of the data has.

Again, I'll trust hundreds of PhDs in peer-reviewed journals around the world over the opinion of some random internet Joe.

Thanks for playing.

Way to paint a picture, but your 8th-grade debate skills are useless. The scientific community is completely divided over this issue, and in light of the history of this issue and the conflict in what the data represents, you're just a fool jumping on the global-warming bandwagon, fueled by the media and driven by fear.

Edit: Forgot to include an attempt at a witty remark ala your post... so... Merry Christmas.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I said 'research', not 'data'. Data over the last few decades or 100 million years hasn't changed; interpretation of the data has.

Again, I'll trust hundreds of PhDs in peer-reviewed journals around the world over the opinion of some random internet Joe.

Thanks for playing.

Way to paint a picture, but your 8th-grade debate skills are useless. The scientific community is completely divided over this issue, and in light of the history of this issue and the conflict in what the data represents, you're just a fool jumping on the global-warming bandwagon, fueled by the media and driven by fear.

Edit: Forgot to include an attempt at a witty remark ala your post... so... Merry Christmas.

I don't disagree that a lot of the people who believe in human caused global warming might be driven by fear, but I think an equally large number of those who DON'T believe in global warming are also driven by emotion, in this case the desire for it not to be true. In neither case does emotion have anything to do with reality, and the real danger is that the science gets overlooked in favor of fanatics driven by emotion on both sides. As long as we're talking reasoned scientific debate, I'm fine with disagreement...because both sides admit that they could be wrong. It's when we start getting into people wanting things to be true that we have problems.

In all honesty, I don't think it really makes a big different. There are a lot better reasons to curb our current fossil fuel usage than global warming, even if we ARE causing it. Pollution and the limited amount of dirty fossil fuels provide all the reason we need to look for an alternative, in my opinion.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ah, mocking things you don't understand. Such a proud tradition among the C students. But don't worry, like most facets of reality, this one too can be driven away by closing your eyes and chanting "There's no such thing as global warming, there's no such thing as global warming" and then hopping in your SUV and enjoying some 12 mpg, overcompensating excitement!

I guess that blindly listening to the mass media who cares more about profit and their own political agendas than the truth is much better than doing some actual research on the subject, right?

I've said this millions of times, but stupid people like you just don't seem to get it. I am very environmentally friendly, in many ways. Probably moreso than you are. However, I have not seen enough evidence to persuade me that global warming is a direct results of human activity. I'm sure we contribute, but I don't see any conclusive evidence that says that we are directly causing major temperature shifts. If you would do some actual research, you would find that there is actually a lot of evidence that humans may not be responsible. Again, I do my part and act as if we are responsible, but I still don't believe that we are. I act because I believe that we should respect the environment as a whole, not because some BS crackpot politician has a political agenda.

Who's listening to the media? I'm going by what almost every major, peer-reviewed study on the subject says. The majority of evidence suggest you are wrong and I'm right...forgive me if agreeing with the vast majority of experts on the subject makes me "stupid", but I just don't see it. And honesty, the fact that you are "environmentally friendly" is great and all...but it doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

I am sure you have read every peer reviewed study in its fullest form right? :disgust:

Of course I haven't, have YOU read all of them enough to feel confident dismissing them so casually? I have read a few of them, and the case they make is very compelling (IMHO). On the other hand, I've been looking for a while for a convincing study suggesting the current warming trend is NOT due to human interference and I've seen little to convince me that this is the case. I know proving a negative is pretty difficult, but even if they could poke holes in the other arguments I'd be wiling to deal with that.

If these studies are so conclusive, why cant they explain the same cycle the earth has gone through already? Well before humans and their fossil fuel burning factories and power plants wrecked the planet?

If I remember correctly (and I might not be), the argument is that the rate and timing are rather suspect. Of course any argument about global warming has to admit that it occurs naturally, whether or not humans are involved. But current data seems to point to a rather rapid increase in warming rates during the last century or so, which directly correlates with our increased usage of industrial technology. If we're not at least part of the cause, it is quite the coincidence.

The other argument is that greenhouse gases are NOT part of past trends, and are pretty closely tied to the current warming trends. In other words, our current warming trend does not seem to be the same as past ones, the difference being directly tied to human actions.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,621
6,178
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ah, mocking things you don't understand. Such a proud tradition among the C students. But don't worry, like most facets of reality, this one too can be driven away by closing your eyes and chanting "There's no such thing as global warming, there's no such thing as global warming" and then hopping in your SUV and enjoying some 12 mpg, overcompensating excitement!

QFT

Not sure what the OP has in mind with this. The article makes total sense and is more of a "duh" than a "whatever".
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: jrenz
Why is it that 20 years ago, all the major peer-reviewed studies led to a scientific consensus that we were experiencing global cooling?
Maybe because this never happened? This is a dangerous myth by the way.
1971 Paper on Warming and Cooling Factors

There was a paper by S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider, published in the journal Science in July 1971. Titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate," the paper examined the possible future effects of two types of human environmental emissions:

1. greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide;
2. particulate pollution such as smog, some of which remains suspended in the atmosphere in aerosol form for years.

Greenhouse gases were regarded as likely factors that could promote global warming, while particulate pollution blocks sunlight and contributes to cooling. In their paper, Rasool and Schneider theorized that aerosols were more likely to contribute to climate change in the foreseeable future than greenhouse gases, stating that quadrupling aerosols "could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 C. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!" As this passage demonstrates, however, Rasool and Schneider considered global cooling a possible future scenario, but they did not predict it.
[edit]

1974 and 1972 National Science Board

The Washington Post reports that in 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation, stated:

During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.

This statement is correct (see Historical temperature record) although the Washington Post quotes it with disapproval. The Post says the Board had observed two years earlier:

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age.

This quote is taken quite out of context, however, and is misleading as it stands. A more complete quote is:

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . .

[edit]

1975 National Academy of Sciences report

There also was a study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences about issues which needed more research (NAS). This heightened interest in the fact that climate can change. The 1975 NAS report titled "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" did not make predictions, stating in fact that "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate." Its "program for action" consisted simply of a call for further research, because "it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitative assessment of the climatic impacts."

The report further stated:

The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know..

This appears to be a clear rebuttal of those, such as SEPP who think that "the NAS "experts" exhibited ... hysterical fears" in the 1975 report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_coo...in_the_Middle_of_the_Twentieth_Century

In other words, some scientists thought there might be a global cooling phenomenon, but recognized their grasp of global atmospheric science was limited at the time and more study was needed to come to any conclusions on the subject. This was also about 35 years ago, not 20, although there were some popular media which picked up this theory after it had already been discredited. By contrast scientists have a much stronger understanding of atmospheric science today and almost universally recognize that global warming is occuring. They also recogize that man made carbon dioxide is clearly a very major contributor to this global warming trend.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Not taking a position (and heck, maybe this article is fake), but if you read this article it makes many of the same points as today's global warming proponents do - ice pack changes, temp changes, etc.

From the Jun 24, 1974, Time Magazine, entitled: "Another Ice Age?"

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern 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. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere ?from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds ?the so-called circumpolar vortex?that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms?the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere?thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries?the U.S., Canada and Australia ?global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: alchemize
Not taking a position (and heck, maybe this article is fake), but if you read this article it makes many of the same points as today's global warming proponents do - ice pack changes, temp changes, etc.
The thing is the Time article is doing a rather poor job of reporting what scientists were actually concluding during the period in question. It is worth noting that one scientist quoted in the article suggested that any cooling trend (there was a slight cooling trend for a few year period in the 1970s) was probably temperary rather than a longer term trend like global warming as we're talking about it today.

Its worth noting 1972 the National Science Foundation report on the subject stated the following, although its general conclusions were often misleadingly quoted by news media during the period and more recently.
Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_coo...in_the_Middle_of_the_Twentieth_Century

In other words, they thought natural trends might have led to global cooling, but they were specifically considering the possibility of global warming due to human interference and recognized they lacked sufficient information and knowledge on the issue for a definative conclusion.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I said 'research', not 'data'. Data over the last few decades or 100 million years hasn't changed; interpretation of the data has.

Again, I'll trust hundreds of PhDs in peer-reviewed journals around the world over the opinion of some random internet Joe.

Thanks for playing.

Way to paint a picture, but your 8th-grade debate skills are useless. The scientific community is completely divided over this issue, and in light of the history of this issue and the conflict in what the data represents, you're just a fool jumping on the global-warming bandwagon, fueled by the media and driven by fear.

Edit: Forgot to include an attempt at a witty remark ala your post... so... Merry Christmas.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA :laugh:

Are you for real? Completely divided sounds like a 50/50 split. It's closer to 98/2 in favor of global warming because caused by humans. Keep it coming. There is no split except the lies propagated by government lobbies.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: alchemize
Not taking a position (and heck, maybe this article is fake), but if you read this article it makes many of the same points as today's global warming proponents do - ice pack changes, temp changes, etc.

Not exactly what I was thinking when I said peer-reviewed.