posted
I saw this on James P. Hogan's website this morning, and I felt I had to share:
GLOBAL COOLING: 1895-1932
The Times, February 24, 1895 "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again" Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.
New York Times, October 7, 1912 "Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"
Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923 "The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."
Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923 "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."
Time Magazine, September 10, 1923 "The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."
New York Times, September 18, 1924 "MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"
GLOBAL WARMING: 1929-1969
New York Times, March 27, 1933 "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"
Time Magazine, January 2, 1939 "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."
Time Magazine, 1951 Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.
New York Times, 1952 Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.
U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954 "[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."
GLOBAL COOLING: 1954-1976
Time Magazine, June 24, 1974 "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations the are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
Science News, March 1, 1975 "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."
International Wildlife, July-August, 1975 "But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."
New York Times, May 21, 1975 "Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"
GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?
Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992 "About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of systenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."
Time Magazine, April 19, 2001 "[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."
New York Times, December 27, 2005 "Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"
The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2002 "Billions will dies, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's already a lot of it... seen The Day After Tomorrow? I don't think there's a contradiction... warming will quite likely trigger a cold snap. Look up thermohaline and the North Atlantic Current.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Usually, Rabbit, this would be the point where folks come in and offer proof that the global warming we're observing now is not part of a warming and cooling cycle.
Just nudging you in the right direction.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not new information that the world's climate moves in cycles of cooler periods and warmer periods - as much as many would like to deny it.
The question is whether the actions of humans can significantly affect that cycle - and if we even have the perspective to tell whether or not the increases are natural or caused by humans.
Are we in a warming period? Seems like. Did we cause it? That's the question of the decade. Will it cool off again? All historical evidence says it will. Will it cool off as much as it naturally would, or have humans impacted climate permanently? That's another big question, and the answer remains to be seen.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest question--whether natural, man made, or the product of Marvin the Martians U38 Space Modulator--will the effects of this change be so detrimental as to effect mankinds existance, and can we do anything about it? Will the economic cost, and all associated costs, to change it be less than the economic cost, and all associated costs, of not changing it?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: There's already a lot of it... seen The Day After Tomorrow? I don't think there's a contradiction... warming will quite likely trigger a cold snap. Look up thermohaline and the North Atlantic Current.
Oh, but that's just silly. That's a game so that any change at all, warming or cooling, can be used as evidence of global warming.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is occasionally asserted that "in the 1970's, the scientific establishment believed in global cooling" and therefore we should be skeptical of global warming now. However, the scientific literature does not support this (see below)
The current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming does not bear easy juxtaposition to any of the other timeframe 'scares' presented, due in part to
1. actual scientific consensus, and 2. expanded climatological models we were not previously capable of.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Usually, Rabbit, this would be the point where folks come in and offer proof that the global warming we're observing now is not part of a warming and cooling cycle.
I'm not sure why that would be necessary or called for here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately for Hogan, handfuls of articles selectively taken from periods spanning decades are a poor way of attempting to show a trend. Such tactics are often very appealing to people who already agree with the argument being presented, though.
See also: Michael Moore, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, #2 is a legit reason to pursue global warming. #1 is far less so. A vast majority of physicists are also pursuing string theory, but that hasn't yielded any reason to think the theory actually describes reality. It is still just one of many possible scenarios. As global warming projections still represent just one of many possible futures.
The more evidence is collected, and the more recordable trends match up to projections, the more reliable a theory like this becomes. But it is never absolute, and it drives me crazy when people treat consensus as though it were proof, and a prediction as though it could be considered a "fact".
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I accept the general principle of global warming. Even if I didn't, cutting back on greenhouse gasses seems like a good idea, and I'd support it.
Samprimary's response answers Lisa's question very well: this time it's different because more educated/concerned parties agree that it's really happening than ever before; and we've got better technology to interpret data than ever before. These two items explain why we don't see global cooling hysteria.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:this time it's different because more educated/concerned parties agree that it's really happening than ever before; and we've got better technology to interpret data than ever before.
Not to disagree with your general argument, but I just want to point out that this was probably what was stated each time before, and this is probably what will be said next time too.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: There's already a lot of it... seen The Day After Tomorrow? I don't think there's a contradiction... warming will quite likely trigger a cold snap. Look up thermohaline and the North Atlantic Current.
Oh, but that's just silly. That's a game so that any change at all, warming or cooling, can be used as evidence of global warming.
First of all, there's usual caveat of citing news articles about science, namely that journalists are, by and large, pretty bad at reporting scientific findings. Note the recent furor over the neurobiologist studying the phenomena of gay sheep, which news outlets erroneously described as including research into "de-gaying" the animals, setting off a huge, and completely pointless, firestorm of controversy.
There's a reason why most scientists these days use the term "climate change," rather than "global warming," and this is precisely it. While the effects of climate change will be, in the long run, an increase in average temperatures worldwide, it brings with it a whole ton of local disruptions that aren't necessarily expressed as super-hot summers or sunny winters. Knocking the Earth's normal climate patterns out of balance can quite easily lead to local cooling as weather patterns change. The shutdown of thermohaline circulation mentioned by Scott is one scenario through which this could occur.
Put simply: the weather is an enormously complex system. Screw with it, and you get all sorts of effects, some nastier than others, some localized to particular regions, and some moving in the opposite direction from others. Saying that's silly is roughly akin to saying that because not drinking enough water can kill you, then it's impossible to drink too much.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
The Wikipedia article Samprimary linked to states that the globing cooling push in the 1970s did not have wide support. Of course, that "fact" also needs a citation... so take it with a grain of salt.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it is never absolute, and it drives me crazy when people treat consensus as though it were proof, and a prediction as though it could be considered a "fact".
I agree wholeheartedly, and it happens all the time. An additional layer of frustration comes when not treating it as though it were fact gets you lumped in with those who treat global warming as a fantasy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:String theory does rule the roost in some parts of theoretical high energy physics and in many major departments.
Note the qualifiers. It is certainly not "a vast majority." It might be the most common focus of research among certain types of theoretical physicists. But that simply means that it is viewed as interesting and possibly informative, not accepted as true. It also ignores the fact that many theoretical physicists (and pretty much all applied physicists) have nothing whatsoever to do with string theory.
Lee Smolin (whose book I must assume you are basing this claim on) is not the great physicist that Slate and others made it sound like. His book is intellectually dishonest, not groundbreaking.
[Edited for additional detail.]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Yeah, but this time we really mean it.
The Wikipedia article Samprimary linked to states that the globing cooling push in the 1970s did not have wide support. Of course, that "fact" also needs a citation... so take it with a grain of salt.
posted
It's not a fantasy, it's a scam. Like thigh cream, or enzyte or cortislim or herbal supplements or any other "scientifically proven" way into your bank account.
It's where the research money is and where the votes are.
Even big business loves it because it increases the initial cost of entry for any potential competition.
*sigh* and I swore to myself I'd stay out of this thread.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not a fantasy, it's a scam. Like thigh cream, or enzyte or cortislim or herbal supplements or any other "scientifically proven" way into your bank account.
The arguments I've seen in support of global warming speak more eloquently than its detractors. Now-- there is hyperbole: the last thing in Lisa's first post is some stark raving hyperbole (EDIT: and on re-read, a really terrible science fiction story premise).
I don't know much about how big business proponents of global warming are fleecing the issue-- can you offer some references or arguments that show how it's taking place?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, Where do you get the idea that "A vast majority of physicists are also pursuing string theory"? From what I know of the field, including knowing a half dozen or so non-string field studying physicists, this isn't remotely true.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Not the same they. Just, y'know, climatologists as a whole.
Well, some of them.
<sigh>
Stoke, stoke, stoke that imaginary contraversy.
Ignore the people who devote their lives to studying this to maintain the status quo. Because, y'know, I'm sure the average pundit understands the issue far better.
"They" have contradicted themselves.
Whew. And here I thought ice shelves in Greenland and Antarctica were collapsing.
And hurricanes that had previously been thought impossible were battering South America.
And permafrost that had supported buildings for decades was becoming unstable.
And polar bears were being considered for the endangered species list specifically because of global warming.
But "they" have contradicted themselves. So... I guess none of that is happening anymore.
Okey dokey. My world has purple clouds and edible pink ponies that taste like cotton candy. We seem to be going that route.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never saw a response to your response to my response to your email. It may have gotten filtered over to my studies folder, which, since I'm not running anything now, generally only gets spam with things like experiement or studies in the title. I'll check when I get in tomorrow.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could've sworn I heard a rivka in here... but nope!
OK, so we've got ourselves what is hopefully prime rivka habitat. Now, I know, rivkas have been very scarce lately-I haven't seen one in ages!-but if we're lucky, and we've bought the correct brand of rivka-callers, we might just make a sighting!
posted
Looked like a response to the original post. A little snarkier than maybe I would have liked, but far closer to the response called for by it than what you suggested, Scott.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a quick correction: Bill O'Reilley is actually convinced that there IS global warming going on...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I'm in the camp that doesn't really know what's going on and thinks it's probably somewhere in the middle of the group that says we are all imminently doomed and the camp that says it's all a scam.
But, much of what is suggested to deal with this - develop alternative fuels and energy sources, preserving rain forests, etc. are things that I think are good ideas for other reasons, besides just the global warming scare. So, I don't have a problem supporting them.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And to go along with what Belle said, I think it would be better to look back and say, "Well, that was a lot of wasted effort for a disaster that never came" than to say, "I wish we had done something before it was too late."
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: But, much of what is suggested to deal with this - develop alternative fuels and energy sources, preserving rain forests, etc. are things that I think are good ideas for other reasons, besides just the global warming scare. So, I don't have a problem supporting them.
Agreed 100%! (Although the last time I pointed this out, someone tried to convince me that airborne pollutants are a good thing.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka — I was typing fast because I was late for work. Yes, I read Smolin's book, but I was aware that "theoretical physics" is a small subset of physics as a whole, so I was speaking far too generally. And upon reflection, "vast" was too strong a word. But the point of my analogy still stands. The number of scientists who believe something or pursue something is irrelevant to that thing's accuracy.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pursue, absolutely. By definition almost. Believed? Well, it's hardly irrelevant. If the majority of scientists in a given field believe something, there is probably significant evidence for it.
But I would agree that it is not proof, and certainly not absolute proof. It is one piece of evidence among many.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pursue, absolutely. By definition almost. Believed? Well, it's hardly irrelevant. If the majority of scientists in a given field believe something, there is probably significant evidence for it.
I'd add in an adjustment that this is a situation where a "vast majority" of scienctists who study this have said not jsut that they believe in it but that they believe that there is significant evidence strongly in favor of this.
Geoff, Removing "vast" from your statement is an improvement, but I don't think you've reached it being true until you take out "majority" as well. I've got no problem with you saying some physicists are pursuing string theory.
Also, this:
quote:The number of scientists who believe something or pursue something is irrelevant to that thing's accuracy.
is true when taken in a simplistic, superficial manner, but is generally false in a more accurate and complex correlative way.
quote:If the majority of scientists in a given field believe something, there is probably significant evidence for it.
Of course ... but in cases like this, I'd love it if people would stop crowing about the consensus, and start elaborating on the evidence — which is the actual reason to believe the idea being proposed.
By the way, I'm obviously a total amateur in the realm of theoretical physics ... just read some Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, and most recently, Smolin's book. I assumed that, while Smolin definitely had a point of view others would disagree with, at least the statistical claims he made about the popularity of string theory, etc, would be accurate, simply because they're the most checkable. Apparently, someone knows better Care to elaborate? On that, and on the claim of "intellectual dishonesty"? Having not yet seen a rebuttal, I'm interested in what the other side of that discussion sounds like.
quote:... is true when taken in a simplistic, superficial manner, but is generally false in a more accurate and complex correlative way.
Wow. That may be the emptiest sentence I've seen in a while. Says just enough to express contempt, yet has almost no content that would allow the reader to evaluate it
I meant the statement to be simple. If a majority of scientists believe something of which I have not yet been convinced, then telling me how many scientists believe it doesn't get me any closer to accepting it. If they have a good reason to believe it, then tell me their reason.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but what if they have several hundred reasons for believing it, each of which is in itself not that strong and also fairly complicated to understand? A lot of science is like that.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your average scientific theory can be explained on a popularizable level, in such a way that interested amateurs can get the gist of how it works. If that isn't enough (eg, it is forced to skim past too many important details) to convince, then an interested reader can look at increasingly complex explanations until he either finds a level where it is convincing, or finds a level where his doubts are confirmed for a solid reason.
Really, it depends on level of interest. "I understand a lot of well-informed people think this, but I've got my doubts" is a perfectly legitimate position for someone to take during the process, when they have yet to find the time to explore it in detail, but aren't willing to accept a seemingly-incredible proposition simply because someone else said they should.
People seem to want to divide debates like this absolutely between "believers" and "deniers", and if you don't accept the consensus opinion immediately, you're a "denier", and there's something wrong with you. You must have some other agenda, or maybe you're just an idiot. Personally, I think that a person who can be categorized as a wholehearted "believer" or "denier" without something more than the testimony of others to go by is a much better target for the "idiot" appellation than someone who wants to understand the reasoning first.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, There are many, many readily available sources of information about why scientists believe that global warming is occurring, among them threads on this very site. There was a recent movie in wide release about this. There are position statements on this, freely accessible online, with links to the various studies that substantiate the included claims.
I'm not sure what else you want people to do to get this evidence across to you.
edit: The consensus argument, as far as I can tell, is generally used not to establish the primary tenability of this idea, but rather in response to many of the weak challenges (often taking the form of talking about the controversy about this where none exists, much like the ID crowd does) offered by opponents.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dog, People crow on the consensus because those who oppose taking action continual harp on the "controversy".
The evidence consists of literally thousands of peer reviewed scientific publications. If you would like to read a good summary of the science, I recommend the book " The Discovery of Global Warming"
My deep deep frustration on this is that I have 10 years of post secondary education in Science and Engineering plus 15 years of teaching Science and Engineering at a graduate level. I have been following global climate change scientific research for 20 years and have been doing atmospheric chemistry research for about the last 8 years. Despite that, I am not yet a leading expert in global climate change. I know who the leading experts are and I understand the results of their studies and the key criticims. I know where the key uncertainties lie in the field and understand why different models of the system disagree and can judge as to whether those disagreements do or do not invalidate an aspect of the theory. But it really did take years of scientific study to understand the field and I can't explain it to you or any one else in a few minutes on a internet forum.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but you sound like you want me or someone else to explain to you in a few paragraphs on an internet forum the research that others take years of intensive study to learn. Then you want me to trust you to make your own judgement on the validity of the research which supports global climate change.
At least 999 out of a thousand of the criticisms I hear of Global Climate Science have been thoroughly disproven in the scientific literature. Some of them, like the ones Lisa infers in this thread, are patently obsurd. They are the equivalent of the arguments put forth by the flat earth society. But frankly, it would take days of my valuable time to teach you enough about climate change science for you to see how totally ridiculous these arguments are.
If you truly are interested in understanding the evidence for Global Climate Change, then do the research. I've given you a good starting point with the link I posted above.
This is at least the 10th time I've posted that link on hatrack and to the best of my knowledge, no one here has yet taken the time to investigate it. If you won't take the time to investigate what's already out their, why should I waste my time trying to explain the science to you?
I've developed a very strong impression that those who continue to criticize Global Climate science, understand somewhere in their subconscious that if this the science is valid, it creates an ethical mandate for us to make some big sacrifices. As a result, they are using every tool in their box to avoid believing the science so that they can continue under the dillusion that they are ethical people.
Well at some point, "I didn't know", fails to be an excuse. If you are honestly trying to understand, then go to the link I posted. Read the book. Read information the author has added since the book was printed. Then come back here with your questions and I will try to answer them.
Until then, I will simply say this. Thousands of scientists who have spent their lives studying this issue have concluded that human activity, principally the burning of fossil fuels, is radically altering the atmosphere of the planet and that these changes are creating major ecological and economic impacts around the world. This will impact not only thousands of species but will adversely impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people unless we can bring it under control. That is the consensus of those who have studied this field in depth.
Unless you have taken the time to read the science yourself, what reasons do you have to doubt the scientific consensus?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really, it depends on level of interest. "I understand a lot of well-informed people think this, but I've got my doubts" is a perfectly legitimate position for someone to take during the process, when they have yet to find the time to explore it in detail, but aren't willing to accept a seemingly-incredible proposition simply because someone else said they should.
Perhaps valid in some contexts but no this one. We aren't talking about a lot of well informed people. We are talking about thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the science over the period of many decades.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:People seem to want to divide debates like this absolutely between "believers" and "deniers", and if you don't accept the consensus opinion immediately, you're a "denier", and there's something wrong with you.
I don't see this at all. Do you have examples of this from Hatrack or other non-extremist sources?
I'm somewhat bothered by how you seem to be making things all about the faults you perceive in people rather than about the evidence.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:People seem to want to divide debates like this absolutely between "believers" and "deniers", and if you don't accept the consensus opinion immediately, you're a "denier", and there's something wrong with you.
We aren't talking about a "consensus opinion" here. We are talking about the best understanding available as the result of thousands of scientific study. While that doesn't consitute "proven fact" because their are still so many unknowns, it does constitute the best explanation available through the collaboration of all the human intellect on the planet. To equate that with "opinion" is an insult.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
