Well Darrin.
I think we can constantly remind them, but they are children from the University's of Indoctrination. I don't think they will ever acknowledge the truth.
Newsweek article from 1975
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 ac ulate 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 Mitc 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.
Well Darrin.
I think we can constantly remind them, but they are children from the University's of Indoctrination. I don't think they will ever acknowledge the truth.
Funny thing is, climate change would occur even if the Earth had no human population. So, really, the AGW crowd are the climate change deniers.
LOL...
Yes I know. That's why in this thread I keep referring to their point as the pseudo science.
Wow, thats brilliant. So when more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere levels drop? Brilliant, simply brilliant. Levels haven't dropped. Pretty safe to say that absent any other explanation CO2 levels have increased from human behavior. This isn't debated.
So its coming from the oceans? Then explain why the CO2 content in the oceans has not dropped.To ignore the fact that other things control sinking and sourcing is not understanding the problem. It is you, who are making things up from lack of understanding.
Nobody disputes that CO2 has increased. Nobody disputs that we probably contribute about 8 GtC annually. However, what if we never did add CO2 to the atmosphere, and the levels increased any way? Is it possible that Henry's law, and the fact that the ocean contains more than 50 times more carbon of the carbon cycle than the atmosphere possible the cause? How have you ruled out that CO2 does not lag temperature? Did you know that the solubility of gasses in water decreases as temperature increases?
I didn't say it was proof. I said it was proven. But once again, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Yes, you could make a chart correlating pirates but you'd just be pointing out what Scott did. The main difference between pirates and CO2? One is a greenhouse gas, one is not.You see, the problem is, this is a complex system. Nothing stands alone. If temperature is increasing outside of the influence of CO2, then CO2 will increase simply by the increasing temperature. If the oceans maintained the same equilibrium as we emitted it, they would sink about 98% of what we emit. That would mean that we only contribute 0.16 GtC annually, or increase CO2 levels by only about 0.08 ppm annually. It would take 12 years to increasing the atmospheric content by 1 ppm *if* the ocean was able to maintain that 50+:1 ratio. It's not that simple either.
What you outlined is not proof. I can show you a chart that correlates the number of pirates with global temperature. Isn't that the same thing you're talking about? Observed effect drawing a conclusion to possible unrelated facts?
If your contention is that CO2 is being released from the ocean then I'd love to see some figures saying that the CO2 content in the ocean has dropped.
So, your theory is the warming is caused by solar? Too bad the output from the sun hasn't changed in the warming period enough to account for the warming. If you have information that the sun has increased output in that period enough to account for the warming then I'd like to see it.
Oh wait, you're theory is that its related to the orbit and tilt of the axis? Which is it? Anyway, if you have proof this the case then please post it.
And, above you spoke about making ridiculous correlations to unrelated events yet you post multiple graphs grasping at different straws just to that effect.
Interesting.
That graph is an excellent example of pseudo science. Perfect example actually.
Already explained to you but you chose to ignore the explanation.Yep. The same CO2 trend was occuring from 1940 to 1970 while the temperature dropped. A THIRTY YEAR PERIOD.
The dashed line is most likely a smoothed average of CO2.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdfThe global temp anomaly from 1940 to 1970 is why the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS in the 1970's was that we needed to be worried about global COOLING.
10% of papers in the 70s talked about cooling. 10% isn't a consensus except when you want it to be. The number that talked about warming? 60%
So, 6 times as many papers discussed and projected warming yet the consensus was cooling?
Interesting.
This particular instance of climate change wouldn't. Thats the point.
However, you've made it quite a few posts without a youtube. I'm impressed on that front.r
With all the "overwheming evidence" to support AGW, a sci-fi docudrama by a Nobel-winning ex vice president, and a more than willing mainstream media, you'd think that more than a third of the population would believe that humans cause climate change.
Why is getting harder and harder to sell this ROCK SOLID science?
Is the amount of people who believe global warming relevant to the scientific basis for it? You amazing me with your skill at bringing up the irrelevant.
To answer you're question, however, its because most people are like you Darrin. Ignorant and idiotic. Kinda like how someone can look at a period where there are 6 times fewer scientific papers stating an outcome and call it a scientific consensus.
This is reminiscent of the capacitor debate.
Then partschanger really did not know what he was talking about so he kept on regurgitating the thing about how capacitors work in series. I guess he read it in a wiki; he certainly hosted enough graphs from wikipedia on his webspace and spammed us with them.
Here it is more of the same. He has found a little nut that he thinks he understands, in this case the ocean as a carbon sink, --or at least he thinks he can fake like he understands-- and he again blathers on and on about it.
In some contexts it might be relevant but in this case its really not and when you try and return to the salient issues he just blathers on accusing one of not understanding.
partschanger really embodies the essence of pseudoscience: you take a little bit of true scientific knowledge, mis or under-represent it so you can conclude some bull and then pass it off under a deluge of bluster.
All this proof, yet he has still failed to provide any of it.
WC and I attack the "science", while Manny and FuzzyLump attack us. Interesting.
Not really.
Appeal to popularity logical fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.
Given that a proportion of the population also believe in magic crystals, a 6,000 year old earth, can't find the US on the map, the only thing such statements "prove" is the abysmal lack of science education in the US.
You don't actually "attack the science". That would require data and peer-reviewed research, which has yet to be produced.
All I have really seen here is logical ad hominem fallacies, among others. There is a difference.
Either you are guilty of selective memory or you are not paying attention.
Temperature reconstructions that create hockey sticks from red noise are suspect. Do you disagree? That reconstruction by Michael Mann (ala Mike's "nature trick" fame) was once prominantly displayed in the IPCC reports. Of course, Penn State fully exonerated Mann (so surprise there).
Tell me, RG, do you think Alfred Wegener was a pseudoscientist? His theory of continental drift was certainly not the consensus view at the time.
The proof can be easily located in the IPCC reports. I'm not reinventing the wheel - I'm telling you the scientists are right.
Yes, I attack your inability to know that 60% > 10%. If you attacking the science is you presenting myth after myth then continue. Its the most easily rebutted science I've ever come across.
Most people can't name the vice president yet I'm supposed to give them enough credit to understand AGW.
Mann's work was fine. Since his earlier work the hockey stick has shown up in every data source we have. Its always there because the warming is happening.
It is undeniable this planet is warming.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/m...Change2007.pdf
Temperature records studied below that show the hockey stick
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/...ature%2700.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...smith2006.html
http://www.martinkodde.nl/glacier/da...0995712675.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/.../mann2008.html
You're right. I'm losing interest. Nothing substantial here from the opposing team, and the game is a blowout.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
