Shocking article on global climate change

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
I'm sick of people denying the obvious. All the scientists are in agreement of what is happening... the time to act is NOW!

There 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. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth?s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling 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.

The Cooling World - - Newsweek, April 28, 1975
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,521
10,794
136
Both religion and science are man made. Their differences are defined by how we derive the writings, but the differences become less distinct when they are both used to control people for political purposes.

It would be best if people could think for themselves instead of told what to think, but alas it always has been and always will be that our knowledge comes from others. So it comes down to which flavor you like best?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,929
2,931
136
Originally posted by: sandorski
whoa, no one ever posted this before :Q

In case you haven't noticed, this forum is full of reposts. GWB is the devil, Iraq war of lies, global warming is going to kill us all, corporations are evil. I think that about sums up 90 percent of the posts here, maybe you should go police those threads too.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,882
6,420
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: sandorski
whoa, no one ever posted this before :Q

In case you haven't noticed, this forum is full of reposts. GWB is the devil, Iraq war of lies, global warming is going to kill us all, corporations are evil. I think that about sums up 90 percent of the posts here, maybe you should go police those threads too.

Ah, those are not reposts.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
You know people usually try to hide their stupidity, ignorance and complete lack of judgement, but nothing brings out the tards out of the closet like a global warming thread.

Scientific American (or one of the other big magazines) did a nice feature on GW a few months ago where they dispelled all the common talking points (such as the one in the OP) pundits and their fans use. I'd take the time to try and find it, but reading idiotic drivel such as Jaskalas' makes it obvious that trying to be reasonable here is a complete waste of time.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,273
55,857
136
Attention everyone: Because a limited number of scientists enabled a media scare in the 1970's with science that was wrong and badly misread by newsweek, this means that scientists must always be wrong about climate issues in the future.

Thank you for settling this issue jrenz.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,929
2,931
136
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Attention everyone: Because a limited number of scientists enabled a media scare in the 1970's with science that was wrong and badly misread by newsweek, this means that scientists must always be wrong about climate issues in the future.

Thank you for settling this issue jrenz.


Nope, it just means that you should always be skeptical, unfortunately man made global warming skeptics are treated like heretics.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,929
2,931
136
Originally posted by: Martin
You know people usually try to hide their stupidity, ignorance and complete lack of judgement, but nothing brings out the tards out of the closet like a global warming thread.

Scientific American (or one of the other big magazines) did a nice feature on GW a few months ago where they dispelled all the common talking points (such as the one in the OP) pundits and their fans use. I'd take the time to try and find it, but reading idiotic drivel such as Jaskalas' makes it obvious that trying to be reasonable here is a complete waste of time.

Maybe you should get back in your closet.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,882
6,420
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Attention everyone: Because a limited number of scientists enabled a media scare in the 1970's with science that was wrong and badly misread by newsweek, this means that scientists must always be wrong about climate issues in the future.

Thank you for settling this issue jrenz.


Nope, it just means that you should always be skeptical, unfortunately man made global warming skeptics are treated like heretics.

What you call "skeptics" are hard to differentiate from full out Deniers. Science is a skeptical process by design and everyday thousands of scientists who research GW perform experiments/Research that may prove GW as False or less a problem than thought. I'd rather listen to those doing the actual work on the issue than those who just right opinion peices all day introducing one Red Herring after another.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,360
126
It's pretty funny every thread fails to accomplish anything but instead turns into a flamefest lol

It's like kinder care in here haha

/puts on fire suit
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,882
6,420
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
It's pretty funny every thread fails to accomplish anything but instead turns into a flamefest lol

It's like kinder care in here haha

/puts on fire suit

hehe, sad, but true, yet funny...dang, I think we are developing personality disorders here. :Q
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
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.?

Just as true now as it was over 30 years ago... (Once you get past the political spin and fear mongering)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Attention everyone: Because a limited number of scientists enabled a media scare in the 1970's with science that was wrong and badly misread by newsweek, this means that scientists must always be wrong about climate issues in the future.

Thank you for settling this issue jrenz.

Actually, I think he just proved science is not to be trusted.


Originally posted by: JD50

Nope, it just means that you should always be skeptical, unfortunately man made global warming skeptics are treated like heretics.

I was a global warming skeptic. I assumed it could be hype, incomplete science, agenda-driven politics (what can we do to scare the people into donating now?)

And no, I don't feel with any reasonable effort that I can reach my 'own' scientific opinion on the matter, it takes too much time to get up to speed on the science.

But I do have some opinions using others' research, and I find the fact that the president of the US National Academy of Sciences says that the scientific consensus on global climate change is the strongest he's ever seen on any issue is convincing, compared to the Exxon-funded groups paid to ask for more research before doing anything.

It's not that skeptics are treated like heretics, it's the skeptics who refuse to adopt the position the evidence leads to and continue to lie for money, for most of them.

And they deserve to be heretics. They might even be worse than you, who simply posts on the wrong side of an issue out of lazy ignorance.

Whozyerdaddy:

?Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,? concedes the National Academy of Sciences report.

See my quote of the head of the Academy for how wrong you are with your own misinformation.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
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.?

Just as true now as it was over 30 years ago... (Once you get past the political spin and fear mongering)

You'd love for that to be true, but is it really so? Why don't we see what the NAS says right now and compare it to what they said in 1975. If the situations are the same as you claim, then they should be saying more or less the same things.

Joint science academies? statement: Global response to climate change

However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.
...
It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
...
The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
...
We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.

Signed by 11 national academies, including the US NAS.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742


So you're a liar... according to the same source you quoted, climate understanding is definitely not the same as it was 30 years ago (as one would expect from 30 years of research).

What really happened is that there was speculation in the mid 70s, however this was based only on a few papers and very little data and as official statements indicate there was nothing close to either understanding or consensus. Since then, there has been an incomparable amount of research done and a very strong consensus has emerged based on this evidence that global warming is happening and that it is caused by humans. So my question is, why do conservative reactionaries keep believing in easily disproved lies?
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
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.?

Just as true now as it was over 30 years ago... (Once you get past the political spin and fear mongering)

You'd love for that to be true, but is it really so? Why don't we see what the NAS says right now and compare it to what they said in 1975. If the situations are the same as you claim, then they should be saying more or less the same things.

Joint science academies? statement: Global response to climate change

However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.
...
It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
...
The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
...
We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.

Signed by 11 national academies, including the US NAS.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742


So you're a liar... according to the same source you quoted, climate understanding is definitely not the same as it was 30 years ago (as one would expect from 30 years of research).

What really happened is that there was speculation in the mid 70s, however this was based only on a few papers and very little data and as official statements indicate there was nothing close to either understanding or consensus. Since then, there has been an incomparable amount of research done and a very strong consensus has emerged based on this evidence that global warming is happening and that it is caused by humans. So my question is, why do conservative reactionaries keep believing in easily disproved lies?

Even in your quote the NAS is couching their position by saying it is "likely" that GW is man made. They can't say that it IS caused by man. Everything past that is a call to action based on something that is not proven, but likely.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: jrenz
I'm sick of people denying the obvious. All the scientists are in agreement of what is happening... the time to act is NOW!

There 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. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth?s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling 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.

The Cooling World - - Newsweek, April 28, 1975

How nice to remind us of the birth of Global Climate Change Study and what they got right and wrong. Global Cooling versus Greenhouse Effect, they just did not know Global Warming was winning.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
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.?

Just as true now as it was over 30 years ago... (Once you get past the political spin and fear mongering)

You'd love for that to be true, but is it really so? Why don't we see what the NAS says right now and compare it to what they said in 1975. If the situations are the same as you claim, then they should be saying more or less the same things.

Joint science academies? statement: Global response to climate change

However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.
...
It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
...
The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
...
We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.

Signed by 11 national academies, including the US NAS.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742


So you're a liar... according to the same source you quoted, climate understanding is definitely not the same as it was 30 years ago (as one would expect from 30 years of research).

What really happened is that there was speculation in the mid 70s, however this was based only on a few papers and very little data and as official statements indicate there was nothing close to either understanding or consensus. Since then, there has been an incomparable amount of research done and a very strong consensus has emerged based on this evidence that global warming is happening and that it is caused by humans. So my question is, why do conservative reactionaries keep believing in easily disproved lies?

Even in your quote the NAS is couching their position by saying it is "likely" that GW is man made. They can't say that it IS caused by man. Everything past that is a call to action based on something that is not proven, but likely.

This may come as a surprise to you (even though you should have learned this in school), but the scientific method can't actually prove anything (apart from the fact that you exist). Uncertainty is very much a part of the method, so when you treat this as some kind of news and ask for proofs, you're just trying to use fancy language to distract from the fact that you don't know wtf you're talking about. Very common technique amongst GW skeptics, creationists and other types of reactionaries.

So let's put your little distraction aside and focus on what you actually said. You believe that 30 years of research has yielded no new knowledge, that our understanding has not improved and that consequently, GW is as speculative today as GC was in the 70s. We've shown that is not the case, so why do you keep believing it to be true?
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
6,541
2,678
136
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.?

Well that is the best line from the article. The earth's climate has shifted many times over millions of years. To say that the climate is shifting because of man made actions there just isn't enough data to support this. The climate could be shifting as part of a natural cycle that we can do nothing about.
 

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
"Global Warming" is a political issue pure and simple.

Any politician claiming it's a scientific issue is just that... a politician.

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Conky
"Global Warming" is a political issue pure and simple.

Any politician claiming it's a scientific issue is just that... a politician.

Let me know when the election is to vote for the temperature.
 

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Conky
"Global Warming" is a political issue pure and simple.

Any politician claiming it's a scientific issue is just that... a politician.

Let me know when the election is to vote for the temperature.
I wish it was that easy. I would vote for "much warmer" for my local climate. Cold weather sucks. :laugh:

P.S. All of these predictions are based on computer models. I shouldn't have to tell technically savvy people the pitfalls of computer modelling. Most people see how great these models are on the nightly news... they can't get the 5-day forecast right so how the heck are they gonna get the 10 year forecast straight. ;)



 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Conky
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Conky
"Global Warming" is a political issue pure and simple.

Any politician claiming it's a scientific issue is just that... a politician.

Let me know when the election is to vote for the temperature.
I wish it was that easy. I would vote for "much warmer" for my local climate. Cold weather sucks. :laugh:

P.S. All of these predictions are based on computer models. I shouldn't have to tell technically savvy people the pitfalls of computer modelling. Most people see how great these models are on the nightly news... they can't get the 5-day forecast right so how the heck are they gonna get the 10 year forecast straight. ;)

So, that explains why so many spacecraft miss the planets they are aimed at. It took Apollo what, 13 tries?

Why do we have people who know nothing about the climate post their lack of info not as the basis for questions, but as claims the scientists don't know anything?