Global Warming

[Kiwon]

MJZ, fishermen where? Korea? How's the fishing in Indonesia, the Philippines, Norway or Finland?

There might be pollution problems in certain areas but it's a mistake to assume that the same problems exist everywhere else in the world.

Again, why would this generation of humans destroy the oceans that they depend upon for survival? It makes no sense.

We can constructively address the pollution issues, net fishing, over-fishing, etc. without hysteria and hyperbole.

[red]

I do remember, however, a Newsweek article from April of 1975 called "The Cooling World" about how scientists were worried about global cooling. (yes, cooling). Another Ice Age was predicted.

There are scientists that believe the global warming issue a myth. There are well-known scientists in other countries that have recanted their stances on global warming being caused by man's creating CO2.

this is actually one of the exact articles that i posted about earlier. from what i can see, the whole ice age theory comes from this article, and pretty much only this article

Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "...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..." (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.

George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.". The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:

Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar's (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).

The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call "imminent" (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.

Will also quotes "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn't. The piece isn't from "Science"; it's from "Science News". There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigous journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.

The Hays paper above is the most notable example of the "ice age" strand. Indeed, its a very important paper in the history of climate, linking observed cycles in ocean sediment cores to orbital forcing periodicities. Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem). There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.

Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn't know enough to make predictions. From the "Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations", we find that they said we should:

1. Establish National climatic research program
2. Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
3. Develope Climatic index monitoring program
4. Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
5. Adoption and development of International climatic research program
6. Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network

Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.

Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:

1. The cooling trend from the 40's to the 70's now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
2. Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
3. Interpretations of future changes in the Earth's orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.

Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.

i don't know, i think its worth a read

[Merlin]

I still dont understand why the hell everyone cares. I mean it seems like "IF" and thats a fucking big if, If global warming is real i dont think the side effects will take place while me or my children hell or even my grand children are alive, i mean yea im self centered about this subject but i dont understand why we put so much crap into this, btw i like in miami, where i can breath fresh air, and swim in the ocean, to me miami was never cold to begin with adn its not going to change because of global friken warming

I suggest you watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and then I'd be interested to see if your opinion is the same.

You mean kind of like Fahrenheit 911? Where the "truth" is conveniently buried? The inconvenient truth is that for every scientist that says man is causing global warming, there is one that says it isn't so. You do know that there are something like 200,000 scientists in the world that study this stuff right? So basically people are believing the blabbering of 1.25% of the scientists and ignoring the rest of them.

[Merlin]

The worst part about this whole topic is that those who post evidence backing them up are choosing to ignore the evidence that refutes it. The truth is always somewhere in the middle and I am not going to go running around saying the sky is falling to scare people into voting for me. It's a political issue and you morons who buy into it probably vote that way to.

Pollution is my only concern. Not whether or not a handful of whack jobs on either side for that matter say this or that. The inconvenient truth is that they don't really know as much as they would have you believe. When you get a majority of the scientists who study this stuff to agree (not 1.5% or 2500 to say it's happening or not, 100,001 who agree it is) then let me know. Until then you are buying a bridge and if you are that stupid, I have some land to sell you....cheap.

[Freak Out]

I have some land to sell you....cheap.

Is it on the beach? Lol!

[MJZiggy]

Go for a couple miles off the beach, Freak Out. The beach will come to you eventually... 8)

[Freak Out]

MJZ, fishermen where? Korea? How's the fishing in Indonesia, the Philippines, Norway or Finland?

There might be pollution problems in certain areas but it's a mistake to assume that the same problems exist everywhere else in the world.

Again, why would this generation of humans destroy the oceans that they depend upon for survival? It makes no sense.

We can constructively address the pollution issues, net fishing, over-fishing, etc. without hysteria and hyperbole.

Stormwater runoff, untreated wastewater discharge and ocean dumping are all huge problems but over-fishing will wipe out entire fish stocks like it's done in the past. I live in Alaska and the State manages the fisheries here as well as any wild fisheries can be managed but there are still problems. The Bering Sea Pollock and cod fisheries are a gold rush which will end in a crash and the unregulated fishing (beyond 200 miles offshore) is a crime. The fucking drifters with gear MILES and MILES long are just raping the sea of everything they can scoop up.....if they consider it trash it just goes over the side.... Between the Russians and all the Asian nations just continually fishing these grounds it will gone for good within our lifetimes. Our fishing methods are so much more efficient than the old Grand Banks cod fisheries of old we'll kill it off much sooner than they did. And you don’t even want to know what goes on in the fish farms....Alaska has kept them banned from State waters but we still get escaped farm fish from BC up our rivers...with the diseases they bring. Humans will screw it up.

[Merlin]

For anyone who is interested in the science behind the differing views of Global Warming, there are some great reads both for and against it here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/

As I said, scientists can't agree and even some that support Global Warming can't attribute it to humans anymore then they can attribute it to a natural phenomenon. One of the scientists who supports it even says that the "Hole in the ozone" scare wasn't fully covered by the media as the "hole" would open in the spring and shrink afterwards or something like that (sorry, I read all the articles so my brain is turning to mush right now). Basically he states that the ozone has the ability to "heal" itself and CFC's may have nothing to do with it or everything to do with it.

So IMO, there you have irrefutable proof that we just don't really know. Yes it is ok to error on the side of caution, but it's the degree of that caution that is the political debate. Pollution affects cities and their temperatures more then it does in the suburbs and country, that is a fact. We just need to keep working towards cleaner fuel sources as we have been.

Using the "Sky is falling" scare tactic used by many liberals on many different things is doing nothing for anyone. Mr "Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore is the biggest hypocrit of all. Ask him how much CO2 the PRIVATE jets he uses to fly around the globe emit, or the caravan of SUV's his cronies and Secret Service use to follow him around spew out. He is a typical left wing nutball who uses the same logic they all do, do as I say not as I do.

[red]

in all fairness, this is america. we don't care about anything, we are desensitized to everything

if scientists come out and say, "you know what, we might be harming the environment, and it might make it hard for future generations to live". there would be about 5 or 6 americans that could give a shit, and we'd all still be waiting for the new bigger version of the ford excursion, so we can suck down 3 miles per gallon

no one would do shit, and no one could care. scientists have been saying for decades polution is bad, no one cared

however. if you come out and scream. "we are all going to die, and itd because of what we're doing".

now you've caught peoples attention.

you have to admitt, a lot more people are interested in the environment these day. and some people are actually doing something to help it. i would think the fear of global warming has pushed the alternate fuels debate along. and i don't think any of uss could say thats a bad thing

is the world coming to an end in 50 years, probably not. is there a chance it will? sure theres a chance.would anybody give a shit about pollution if there wasn't a chance the world could end in 50 years? probably not, because its not convenient for us to change our way of life to help others down the road.

now, this might not really be whats happening. but it could be. i don't know

you have to work in extremes in this day in age, in this country if you want to get anyones attention

if you work in the middle, no one will notice or care

[Merlin]

I disagree with the whole "the sky is falling" theory. I was brought up in the 1970's and 80's. The EPA had a huge marketing strategy that impacted myself and many others as we were growing up. Who could ever forget those tree hugging stickers and the Indian crying at the pollution on TV. That made a difference then and it would work today. That campaign is long gone and instead of that kind of marketing, we have the liberal mainstream media ramming half truths and down right lies down our throats. A day, hell a second, doesn't go by when they don't have something negative to say in support of some liberal position no matter how naive that position is.

The difference is that the extreme left and even moderate liberals think they have to scream the loudest to be heard, even if what they are screaming isn't the truth. It's their way or no way. Their mantra is that we cannot live without them and they use scare tactics to get people to believe them.

For years it was Social Security and how the evil conservatives were going to take it away. What you didn't hear how it was the Democratic held congress that pilfered it for 30 years when they had control. They spent all of the baby boomer's payments and now there is a problem because there aren't enough workers to pay for all those retirees. And it's the conservatives who are trying to take it away? Seems to me that the liberals took it away years ago and want more of my money to pay for their mistake.

Then we have the war in Iraq. Nearly every western nation including China & Russia believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and the power to make them. This included almost every liberal in Congress. This was based off of world-wide intelligence, not the Bush administration. Bill Clinton administration held the same beliefs. Now that the main thrust of the war is over, liberals and some RINO's are running around condemning the war and saying things like "If I knew then what I know now". Well guess what, it's WAR and it doesn't have a script. WMD's were in fact found, unless you consider enough sarin gas to kill 300,000 people not a WMD. If so, please tell me how many people have to die before it's considered a WMD? It is true that we did not find stockpiles that are more than likely sitting in Syria as many in the world intelligence committee believe. However, Iraq did have ties to Al Queida, not to 9/11, there is a difference. Iraq was sponsoring terrorism under Saddam. There were many reasons to go to war, most of which the American people could not easily get behind. So the President used the simplest message in his address to the people. He didn't lie because if he lied then there are 435 other people in Congress and about 100 countries that did as well. You have the right to protest and have your opinions. That is afforded you by the very people the liberals vilify at every turn. The mainstream media, instead of supporting our hero's, goes out of it's way to make the liberals bashing our hero's seem right or "it was a bad joke". If a conservative said the same things the liberals are, you can bet your bottom dollar the media would be all over it. Take a look at the Libby trial. I mean really, the whole thing was much to do about nothing because Valeri Plume was no longer an under cover agent when her name was given out, therefore no laws had been broken. So now we have the whole Libby purgered himself thing splashed all over the media. What about John Kerry going to Sweden and calling our country a "poria" on the world bent on world domination? YOU WANTED THIS GUY FOR PRESIDENT?

The media is behind the liberal agenda, the usual nut balls are behind the liberal agenda and you think we need more of "The Sky is Falling" rhetoric? I think not. What we need is a huge does of reality that we live in the greatest country in the world and that our freedoms (which are not free) will not be taken away from us without a fight. You cannot come into our country , bully us, and expect us to be "tolerant" of your culture. We have a culture and if you don't like it, leave. If you are here illegally, expect to be deported. Don't expect government handouts, free education and health care.

Face it, our society has become complacent with the false sense of reality that the government will take care of us. That isn't the governments job. It's our job to take care of ourselves and our environment. If you don't care, fine, that is your right. But don't go running around with your head cut off claiming that I have to pay for your liberal nut job ideas because frankly, you aren't right all that often and in fact are already wasting my money on silly social programs aimed at keeping Americans dependent on the government for their very livelihood.

[the_idle_threat]

[/rant]

[Merlin]

"this is actually one of the exact articles that i posted about earlier. from what i can see, the whole ice age theory comes from this article, and pretty much only this article "

Then I guess you haven't done your research very well. I suggest you go read the articles on the link I posted earlier. You may be surprised to find out that there is more than one "article", more than one "scientist" and a hell of a lot more than two theories on Global Warming.

THE SKY IS FALLING!

[Merlin]

MJZ, fishermen where? Korea? How's the fishing in Indonesia, the Philippines, Norway or Finland?

There might be pollution problems in certain areas but it's a mistake to assume that the same problems exist everywhere else in the world.

Again, why would this generation of humans destroy the oceans that they depend upon for survival? It makes no sense.

We can constructively address the pollution issues, net fishing, over-fishing, etc. without hysteria and hyperbole.

I agree whole-heartedly. The old "say it enough it becomes the truth" and the "crowd theory" have caused us to lose many rights in this country.

Like the right to raise your child as you see fit to name an obvious one.

[MJZiggy]

(It's not actually falling...more like opening up with giant holes in it....)

[the_idle_threat]

But aren't those holes being filled with nice, warm, insulating greenhouse gas?

And what does it matter ... if we're all dead by 2050, then it's too late to do anything about it now!