Global Warming

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Chancellor But if, as Al Gore and friends claim, the temperature has been rising over the last 100 years or so, there can't have been a period of cooling during that same time. You don't get to have it both ways! Of course, I'm only referring to the last 100 years or so - roughly the period during which we've been keeping records of the weather. You don't get to have both a coming ice age and global warming. Now, if you're going to say the scientists that were predicting an ice age were wrong, what makes you think that scientists crying global warming are not wrong? After all, we're talking about scientists here - the people that you and so many here on Volconvo expect me to defer to.

Do you or do you not understand that the data scientists have now is vastly better than the data scientists had in the 1970's?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: EnragedParrot They did no such thing. I challenge you to find me a single article in the scientific literature warning of a coming ice age in the 70's.

This one isn't "scientific literature" but here's an overall explanation: http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...ireandice.asp; nor is this one: 150 Years of Global Warming and Cooling at the New York Times | NewsBusters.org

Even the US National Academy of Sciences adopted this view.


"There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling
could befall the Earth within the next 100 years."


Prof Patrick Michaels, now a prominent critic of the Greenhouse scare, was justifiably sceptical then, just as he is now.

"When I was going to graduate school,
it was gospel that the Ice Age was about to start.
I had trouble warming up to that one too.
This (greenhouse) is not the first climate apocalypse,
but it's certainly the loudest

SOURCE

Here's a quote from "scientific literature":

Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141

Here are the opening paragraphs of that paper -

ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.

Abstract. Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Becuase of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg.K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

The rate at which human activities may be inadvertently modifying the climate of Earth has become a problem of serious concern 1 . In the last few decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to have increased by 7 percent 2 . During the same period, the aerosol content of the lower atmosphere may have been augmented by as much as 100 percent 3 .

How have these changes in the composition of the atmosphere affected the climate of the globe? More importantly, is it possible that a continued increase in the CO2 and dust content of the atmosphere at the present rate will produce such large-scale effects on the global temperature that the process may run away, with the planet Earth eventually becoming as hot as Venus (700 deg. K.) or as cold as Mars (230 deg. K.)?

We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.

However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was around in the 1970s when scientists were saying all this stuff. For us, the so-called threat of a coming ice age was what the so-called threat of global warming is today.


Consider also from this SOURCE:

"Gribbin summed up the scientific view on the subject by dividing opinions among pessimists, superoptimists, and optimists. “[T]he pessimists say that climatic doom is imminent. . . . [T]here are still a few super-optimists . . . [who] . . . say that climate doesn’t change very much in any time-scale relevant to man and that there is nothing to worry about.” Gribbin called himself an optimist, whose view is “[t]hat an ice age may be upon the world within a few hundred years, and that the immediate deterioration of the climate at the present time requires urgent attention from all responsible people. . . . [W]ithin a hundred years or so we may well be in a position to adapt our global society to withstand even the rigours of a full ice age” (1976, 99). Thus, the range of opinion ran from an imminent catastrophic ice age to no appreciable change, with a middle (and optimistic) view that we have enough time to act to mitigate the effects of the impending ice age.
The view that global cooling was on its way reached a large general audience through the Newsweek article “The Cooling World” by Peter Gwynne (1975, 64). Gwynne noted, “The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.” He said that scientists “are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” He stated further, “The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” Commenting on the already-evident cooling trend in the same article, he mentioned that “Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about 7 degrees lower than during its warmer eras—and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.”

Also, consider the kind of discussion that has been going on throughout much of the 20th century: The Public and Climate Change (1)

Consider also this article: http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf. Yes, I know, it's not scientific literature but it does quote real live scientists.

And this one: Has The New Ice Age Already Begun?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Thanatos Do you or do you not understand that the data scientists have now is vastly better than the data scientists had in the 1970's?

It isn't about data, it's about interpretation. You are essentially accusing scientists from the 1950s to 1970s of lying about a cooling trend.

And so what if there was a cooling trend? It's obvious we're not in an ice age today. And so what if there's a warming trend? It's obvious the world isn't turning into one vast desert. The point is that these kinds of scare tactics are nothing more than an attempt to manipulate people into changing their behavior.

[Mr. Jaggers]

Right. More propaganda. "Follow the money!" - and you will know who are the "false" prophets. See

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Patrick J. Michaels

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Chancellor It isn't about data, it's about interpretation. You are essentially accusing scientists from the 1950s to 1970s of lying about a cooling trend. And so what if there was a cooling trend? It's obvious we're not in an ice age today. And so what if there's a warming trend? It's obvious the world isn't turning into one vast desert. The point is that these kinds of scare tactics are nothing more than an attempt to manipulate people into changing their behavior.

The Earth is supposed to be a vast desert? Since when...nevermind.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Chancellor This one isn't "scientific literature"

Then it doesn't matter much, does it? The point I was making is that there was no support of any "imminent ice age" in the scientific literature of the day. Despite what Patrick Michaels says, it was never gospel that the ice age was about to start.

Scientists in the 70's were just beginning to understand the complex processes behind Earth's past ice ages. This, coupled with their less than stellar understanding of the climate (they had just begun to understand how the greenhouse effect worked as well) led a few to speculate that, if the slight cooling trend observed from the 1940's through the early 70's were to continue, it might eventually lead to an ice age. They were hardly concerned about the possibility though.

However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!

See above.

I was around in the 1970s when scientists were saying all this stuff. For us, the so-called threat of a coming ice age was what the so-called threat of global warming is today.

There is absolutely no comparison between then and today. Today we have a widespread scientific consensus over the issue that is supported by every major academic and scientific institution on the planet, and hundreds of articles published in the scientific literature. Then you had a book in the popular press, one or two articles in popular magazines, and a very small amount of scientific speculation.

Also, consider the kind of discussion that has been going on throughout much of the 20th century: The Public and Climate Change (1)

His article is interesting, as all of Spencer Weart's work is (I strongly encourage you to read through the entire site). But it has little to do with the subject at hand. What the public thinks about climate change isn't the issue here.

Consider also this article: http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf. Yes, I know, it's not scientific literature but it does quote real live scientists. And this one: Has The New Ice Age Already Begun?

Yes. There were some regrettable things published in the popular media of the time. Which may well have fueled the "imminent ice age" myth. But both of those articles are gross misrepresentations of scientific opinion at the time.

Even Richard Lindzen, a favorite of the GW theory opponents, and one of the few credible climate scientists who does not accept the theory, has dismissed this argument. Calling it, "Stupid."

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Chancellor But if, as Al Gore and friends claim, the temperature has been rising over the last 100 years or so, there can't have been a period of cooling during that same time. You don't get to have it both ways!

Yes there can. CO2 isn't the only thing affecting the climate. The cooling trend from the 40's through the 70's was the result of some other forcing temporarily overwhelming the warming signal from the CO2.

Nobody said it was warming and cooling at the same time.

Also, I would appreciate it if you, in the future, could stop referring to Al Gore in a way that suggests he's actually relevant to something here.

Of course, I'm only referring to the last 100 years or so - roughly the period during which we've been keeping records of the weather. You don't get to have both a coming ice age and global warming. Now, if you're going to say the scientists that were predicting an ice age were wrong, what makes you think that scientists crying global warming are not wrong? After all, we're talking about scientists here - the people that you and so many here on Volconvo expect me to defer to.

Well, aside from the fact that there were no scientists predicting an ice age in the 70's, our understanding of the physical processes behind the climate has improved by leaps and bounds in the past forty years. There is a simply astronomic difference between the state of climate science in the 70's and today.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: EnragedParrot Then it doesn't matter much, does it? The point I was making is that there was no support of any "imminent ice age" in the scientific literature of the day. Despite what Patrick Michaels says, it was never gospel that the ice age was about to start. Scientists in the 70's were just beginning to understand the complex processes behind Earth's past ice ages. This, coupled with their less than stellar understanding of the climate (they had just begun to understand how the greenhouse effect worked as well) led a few to speculate that, if the slight cooling trend observed from the 1940's through the early 70's were to continue, it might eventually lead to an ice age. They were hardly concerned about the possibility though. See above. There is absolutely no comparison between then and today. Today we have a widespread scientific consensus over the issue that is supported by every major academic and scientific institution on the planet, and hundreds of articles published in the scientific literature. Then you had a book in the popular press, one or two articles in popular magazines, and a very small amount of scientific speculation. His article is interesting, as all of Spencer Weart's work is (I strongly encourage you to read through the entire site). But it has little to do with the subject at hand. What the public thinks about climate change isn't the issue here. Yes. There were some regrettable things published in the popular media of the time. Which may well have fueled the "imminent ice age" myth. But both of those articles are gross misrepresentations of scientific opinion at the time. Even Richard Lindzen, a favorite of the GW theory opponents, and one of the few credible climate scientists who does not accept the theory, has dismissed this argument. Calling it, "Stupid."

I think that all of it's just a bunch of nonsense that certain groups are using to try to scare people into certain behaviors. Back in the 70s it was to get us to stop using CFCs, freon and other such things. Today it's about reducing our "carbon footprint."

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Chancellor I think that all of it's just a bunch of nonsense that certain groups are using to try to scare people into certain behaviors. Back in the 70s it was to get us to stop using CFCs, freon and other such things. Today it's about reducing our "carbon footprint."

I don't think that that's the case. I think it's all just a scientific theory. Scientific theories don't give a fluff how you behave. That "certain groups" attempt to utilize them for their own ends doesn't mean diddly. That's like saying the theory of gravity is all a big scam to benefit parachute manufacturers.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Chancellor But if, as Al Gore and friends claim, the temperature has been rising over the last 100 years or so, there can't have been a period of cooling during that same time. You don't get to have it both ways!

The over all trend is a 0.6C rise, that is a general accepted scientific fact now. Why can there not be some cooling, if there were other factors such as human introduced sulphates or volcanic eruptions? It happened but the warming still continued.

Quote by: Chancellor Of course, I'm only referring to the last 100 years or so - roughly the period during which we've been keeping records of the weather. You don't get to have both a coming ice age and global warming. Now, if you're going to say the scientists that were predicting an ice age were wrong, what makes you think that scientists crying global warming are not wrong? After all, we're talking about scientists here - the people that you and so many here on Volconvo expect me to defer to.

No one predicted an actual ice age coming, there were speculations that the press took to a new level. The level of consensus and the amount of research back in the 60's and 70's is completely dwarfed by the recent ones.

[rmnunez]

So, according to Schenider and Rasool, if enough CFC were released in hairsprays, we could counter global warming effects and even induce an ice age? Too bad Kyoto banned them.

[thx1138]

So, according to Schenider and Rasool, if enough CFC were released in hairsprays, we could counter global warming effects and even induce an ice age?

looks like this maybe happening with out hairsprays...
YouTube - NBC News: Chemtrails

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: rmnunez So, according to Schenider and Rasool, if enough CFC were released in hairsprays, we could counter global warming effects and even induce an ice age? Too bad Kyoto banned them.

You are aware of the side effects of CFC on the Ozone...aren't you?

[Mr. Jaggers]

Sometimes little things can have a big impact. A little mentioned aspect of global warming is the decline of Antarctic krill (estimated at 80% since the 1970's); which is significant both for its role in regulating carbon emissions into the atmosphere and because it is at the base of the ocean food chain - not to mention a substantial commercial harvest. Krill feed on phytoplankton beneath the sea ice, and it is the melting sea ice due to rising temperature that has caused the dramatic decrease in krill populations. This, in turn, will increase of amount of carbon emissions, exacerbating global warming and its effects. It is a vicious cycle; and one that will likely have profound consequences.

Antarctic krill provide carbon sink in Southern Ocean

[xyzer]

It isn't about data, it's about interpretation. You are essentially accusing scientists from the 1950s to 1970s of lying about a cooling trend.

Yep! We can only intrepet what we can observe? Scientists weren't lying then, just basing their conclusions on what they could observe?

Satellite technology taking global measurements over the last quarter century has overcome observations of the 1950s! The array of scientific studies is still impaired by a lack of world wide temperature data? We still really don't know whats going on close to the ground in many parts of South America, Asia, Africa?

I maintain that the use of "proxy data" is a dangerous method upon which to base certainty? Yet we are in the process of doing it? I guess because of political pressures?

[rmnunez]

Yes, I'm aware of the effects of CFCs, in the note I posted earlier it said unabated spraying of aerosols cause the onset of an ice age. This is why I thought hairspray might save the world from global warming.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I maintain that the use of "proxy data" is a dangerous method upon which to base certainty? Yet we are in the process of doing it? I guess because of political pressures?

If it is not possible to take direct measurements, i.e. for those in the past, then why is using proxy data not valid? Scientists do it all the time and as long as the methods are scientifically valid then why can't we?
I keep asking but you don't seem to have the answer; What alternate methods do you have to reconstruct temperatures of the past, other than with proxies?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: xyzer I maintain that the use of "proxy data" is a dangerous method upon which to base certainty? Yet we are in the process of doing it? I guess because of political pressures?

Ice cores and tree rings don't lie. They could theoretically, but the probability of such a correlation existing globally and for such a long time back is rather ridiculous. Quality of data, stranger. Quality.

[rmnunez]

It was explained to me in an introductory statistics class, how simply by taking more measurements the extremes in recordings would be enhanced, its some sort of basic rule in the field.

If we have more measurements now than we used to, these will record greater extremes. As we add data to estimate temperatures in the past, in order to prognosticate those of the future, obviously the extremes will be much more enhanced. I think this is why by some estimates the world will flood within a decade and sea levels rise by several meters, while others anticipate centimeric variations over the course of centuries.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: rmnunez It was explained to me in an introductory statistics class, how simply by taking more measurements the extremes in recordings would be enhanced, its some sort of basic rule in the field. If we have more measurements now than we used to, these will record greater extremes. As we add data to estimate temperatures in the past, in order to prognosticate those of the future, obviously the extremes will be much more enhanced. I think this is why by some estimates the world will flood within a decade and sea levels rise by several meters, while others anticipate centimeric variations over the course of centuries.

My introductory statistics teacher told me that too, but he also told me that the mean would get more accurate as the sample size increases.

Show me one statistician who said decade-scale multimeter rises who wasn't laughed out of the scientific community. One.