Does Global Warming exist or is it an aberration?
A look back a bit might be in order.
Studies of so called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts indicate that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the 9th and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher than today.
They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300. Since 1900 the world has begun to warm up again but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
(Taken from the article, Global Warming: Medieval Era Hotter Than Today; The London Telegraph, April 6, 2003.)
A look back a bit might be in order.
Studies of so called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts indicate that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the 9th and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher than today.
They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300. Since 1900 the world has begun to warm up again but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
(Taken from the article, Global Warming: Medieval Era Hotter Than Today; The London Telegraph, April 6, 2003.)
Global Cooling
Posted November 4, 2009 at 10:53 PM by Steve
The Cooling World - 1975 Newsweek article
Discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, accounts appeared in the popular media, notably an April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine, titled "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." It claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The article did not state the cause of cooling; but that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
The article mentioned solutions of "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers" but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: "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 (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."
Perhaps we should gather data for a few more centuries before legislatiing solutions to problems that might not exist.
Discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, accounts appeared in the popular media, notably an April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine, titled "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." It claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The article did not state the cause of cooling; but that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
The article mentioned solutions of "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers" but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: "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 (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."
Perhaps we should gather data for a few more centuries before legislatiing solutions to problems that might not exist.
Total Comments 13
Comments
-
One issue with your logic: the earth is theorized to supposed to be cooling now actually, so the fear of the earth cooling (which had been noticed from the 40s to the 70s) was also based on the theory that the earth enters natural warm and cool periods based on the slight fluctuation of the earth's axis, and thus the angle it faces the sun. But it was suspected that we should be entering a cooling period now, but we are warming up despite our angle.
The problem with waiting centuries to prepare is that you can perhaps run out of time, and as dramatic weather changes can have serious effects it is negligent to just watch and see what happens. It violates basic human rights that the government is supposed to protect if they sit by and do nothing to even try to prevent a potential global (mind you, not jut national) disaster. We go to war based on supposed weapons of terror, perhaps we should be just as cautious with how we interact with the environment as well?
In short, your point kind of shows how much of a threat this global warming could be.Posted November 5, 2009 at 08:05 AM by Ensnare
-
From the Wikipedia article on Global Cooling:
"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century."
Best not to get your science from Newsweek.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you can test that in a lab. We are digging up billions of tons of carbon that had been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years and putting it into the atmosphere. I haven't heard of anyone positing a mechanism that would supposedly counterbalance this.Posted November 5, 2009 at 11:14 AM by Mixie Shadowmuffin 
-
While there may be cyles of warming and cooling, humanity has never before been at a stage in it's technological development where it had the ability to exacerbate whatever natural fluctuation was taking place.
I believe that is the concern.Posted November 5, 2009 at 03:21 PM by Gye'ron Val Oriden
-
I enjoy living living here on planet earth and find it to be a bit of everything one could want. We can enjoy a hike in the Alps or one in Death Valley. There is so much between those extremes as well. We do have an obligation to ensure that posterity can enjoy all this as well.
My doubts are whether climate fluctuations can be controlled by us. I think the earth has already sustained itself through many drastic changes. If the CO2 increases, soon the plant life will thrive even more while sucking up some of that excess CO2. After all, we once had glaciers all over the pace, the earth survived the Big Ice Age and mankind eventually thrived. None of that was caused by industries spewing pollutants, nor was it remedied by ecologists. It simply happened and then it changed.
Adding to my doubts about modern day solutions to eternal problems is the fact that whether the earth is considered to be cooling or warming, the culprits are industrialzation and those who live a comfortable life.
We blame domesticated cattle for pollution by flatuence, yet we strive to protect wild life in the jungles who also "break wind" now and then. Perhaps we have more solutions than there are problems.Posted November 7, 2009 at 02:52 PM by Steve
-
It's not actually cow farts that produce greenhouse gases, it's more cow belches. Cattle are maintained in much higher numbers than wild animals, most of who don't have the complicated methane producing digestive tracts.
You are certainly right that the earth has sustained itself through drastic climate changes. We are actually in the warmer part of an ice age right now, there have been times when the planet was a lot hotter. Life on earth is not threatened by climate change, although individual species are going to have a hard time of it.
As to whether we can do anything to control it, I don't think we can control all of it, but we can control the stuff we release, and we can calculate if it's going to have an effect or not. We know how much greenhouse gases we're releasing and what the effects are. I don't think we're going to do anything about it until it's much too late. People aren't going to give up luxuries for an issue that won't be dire for a good few years. Humanity will not be wiped out but a lot of people will die due to drought and famine, and there are some places that aren't going to be able to get enough water anymore. The polar bear is probably going to go extinct or extinct outside of zoos no matter what we do now.Posted November 7, 2009 at 10:12 PM by Mixie Shadowmuffin
-
ConocoPhillips-supported USGS studies have documented the population status and survival rates of adult and young polar bears.
Worldwide numbers of polar bears are estimated at between 21,500 and 25,000. Population growth for nearly 30 years has coincided with increases in the number of people on Alaska’s North Slope and the expansion of oil and gas exploration and development. Excessive hunting during the 1960s substantially reduced the number of polar bears in the region. However, after sport hunting ended in Alaska in 1973 with the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the population has grown.
The United States Geological Survey, is the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment. It's finding deserve at least equal weight with computor simulations that predict the demise of the Polar Bear.Posted November 9, 2009 at 11:51 PM by Steve
-
Take this information as you will, but as a counterpoint I think it's relevant:
Ask The Experts - Polar Bears InternationalPosted November 10, 2009 at 09:35 PM by Rectify
-
Climate Catastophe Update
Now that the term Global Warming has been discarded and replaced by Climate Change it is hard to argue against it. Any year that differs from the previous year is now regarded as proof that industrialized countries are destroying everything that really matters.
A few years ago Chicken Little was predicting calamities because the Ozone Hole over the South Pole was growing. Now bad things are being predicted because that same Ozone Hole is closing.
Hot or cold, more ozone or less ozone, we are at fault. My car pollutes, Al Gore's private jet does not polute because he buys carbon credits from himself.Posted February 24, 2010 at 10:21 PM by Steve
-
I must admit to being greatly cynical about buying carbon credits, but I recently saw a farming program which featured some farms in South America where every year the forest was getting cut back to produce more grazing land. Now though the farmers are replanting forest because the carbon credit companies pay more than the beef was getting.
It's hard to be clear about anything any more. But despite my cynicism I'm glad about the focus that has been gained on waste even if it is for all the wrong reasons.Posted February 26, 2010 at 11:55 AM by Hengest
-
Those folks in Iceland let their volcano create more pollution than do all the industrialized nations in an entire year.
We ought not poison the air we breathe or the water we drink. However, so long as valcanoes continue to erupt, the industrial CO2 output will continue to be comparatively insignificant.Posted April 23, 2010 at 08:35 PM by Steve
-
According to de Volkskrant, one of the quality newspapers of my land to which I am subscribed, the Iceland volcano eruption had a netto positive effect on the emission of greenhouse gasses.
Precise measurements have not yet been done regarding the CO-2 emission of the Icelandic volcano, but compared to earlier eruptions on Iceland and the Pinatubo on the Philipines in 1991, it is estimated that the volcano emits between 10-20 thousand tons CO-2 per day.
On monday twenty thousand air flights were cancelled throughout Europe. With an average flight distance of 750 km and an emission of 25 kg CO-2 per km, that is an estimated 375 thousand tons of CO-2 not emitted into the air. In addition to the CO-2 airplanes also emit many nitrogenoxides and condensation trails, almost doubling the total effect of air flight to global warming.
On a global scale this is still peanuts of course, as air flight is only responsible for a few percent of the total CO-2 emission, and a week of no or less flying in Europe is not going to achieve much.
In conclusion, a statement that a volcano produces as much pollution [sic] than all the industrialized nations together for an entire year, might be true in say... 1810...Posted April 24, 2010 at 03:58 AM by Malkaer Andares
-
Is this information journalistic opinion or scientific fact? According to Google, de Volkskrantt became a left-wing newspaper in the 1960s. Its former clear left wing stance has been watered down since 1980.Quote:Originally Posted by Malkaer Andares
According to de Volkskrant, one of the quality newspapers of my land to which I am subscribed, the Iceland volcano eruption had a netto positive effect on the emission of greenhouse gasses.
.........................................
In conclusion, a statement that a volcano produces as much pollution [sic] than all the industrialized nations together for an entire year, might be true in say... 1810...
When a newspaper is reputed to have a bit of a bias perhaps one should seek corroboration. Of course that could apply to my sources as well.
FYI, the word pollution was spelled correctly.Posted April 26, 2010 at 11:58 PM by Steve
-
Lmao, I should have known you would attack my 'leftist' sources. The author of the article states his findings are comparable with those by Jos Olivier of the Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL), which is a scientific thinktank for environmental issues, and no doubt populated by atheist socialists.
If you would treat your own sources with the same critical look you cast on everything leftist perhaps you will stop making a fool of yourself with statements like a volcano creating more 'pollution' than all the industrialized nations together in one year.Posted May 2, 2010 at 05:28 AM by Malkaer Andares
Total Trackbacks 0
