The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

SuzanneKneeling -> The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/15/2007 11:40:58 AM)

There's a lot of misinformation on this chat forum about global warming. I can't be here all the time to clean up after all ofit, but I do what I can. Here's one I've seen brought up twice today. So I'm reposting what I wrote on the thread about the Al Gore court case having been funded by the mining and petroleum industries.

This is one of the favorite myths of the Denial crowd. This notion was never put forth by more than a small handful of scientists. The popular press grabbed it and had a short salacious run with it, but it was never a widely accepted notion in the scientific community. Here are a couple pretty good links summing up the episode. Just something to help keep things in perspective when this gets thrown up there by the obfuscation crowd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94



Estring -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/15/2007 11:49:30 AM)

And ages ago most people in the world believed the Earth was flat. Wrong is wrong no matter how many believe it.



Mercnbeth -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/15/2007 12:17:36 PM)

I don't care what church you go to worship just don't ask me to donate to the collection plate if I have good reason to not have "faith".

Historical data doesn't support your position that we are experiencing anything unique in the history of the world. I do undertake research and have yet to see any of these new 'scientific models' provided by the global warming messiah, Al Gore, or any of his apostles, account for the historically documented past.

quote:

Indeed, the current warming cycle is not unusual: Evidence from around the world shows that the Earth has experienced numerous climate cycles throughout its history. These cycles include glacial periods (more commonly known as Ice Ages) and interglacial periods, as well as smaller, though significant, fluctuations. During the past 20 years, scientists have been accumulating strong physical evidence that the Earth consistently goes through a climate cycle marked by alternating warmer and cooler periods over 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years). The evidence indicates that:
  • The Earth experienced a Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.
  • A Modern Warming period began about 1850 and continues to the present.

Source: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279a.html 


If you discount the observations from the 1300-1850 you can look at some of the same people's predictions for 2006 and 2007. Predicting the weather for a week in the future isn't absolute science. The doomsayers said we'd be in for the "worst year for hurricanes" in 2006 and then again in 2007. How did that work out?
quote:

The 2006 forecast calls for:
  • 17 named tropical storms; an average season has 9.6.
  • 9 hurricanes compared to the average of 5.9.
  • 5 major hurricanes with winds exceeding 110 mph; average is 2.3.

Source: http://www.livescience.com/environment/051206_hurricane_forecast_2006.html 


Reality 2006 :
quote:

 MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Defying predictions, the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season ended with a whimper rather than a bang on Thursday, without a single hurricane hitting U.S. shores.
Only three tropical storms made landfall, a welcome relief from the previous two years, when nearly a dozen hurricanes battered the country.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/11/30/hurricanes/index.html 


Scientists do any better in 2007? Here is their prediction:
quote:

"For the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA scientists predict 13 to 17 named storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which three to five could become major hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher," said retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D., undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. An average Atlantic hurricane season brings 11 named storms, with six becoming hurricanes, including two major hurricanes. Source: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2864.htm 
 
Let's not forget how right FEMA was this year:
quote:

On Tuesday, FEMA Administrator David Paulison and DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff participated in a press conference on the 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook. They, along with officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and U.S. Air Force Reserve, discussed preparations the federal government has made for the upcoming hurricane season. NOAA's Climate Prediction Center projects a 75 percent chance that the Atlantic season will be above normal this year. (Read More) Source: http://www.fema.gov/hazard/hurricane/hu_season.shtm  

Yeah but the official season isn't over until November 30th so they could still be right.

And that's how it works doesn't it? At some point, some year, some place; there will be a huge hurricane, maybe bigger than Katrina, and then you get to say "I told you so!" If that makes you happy - Good luck with that! 



philosophy -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/15/2007 2:45:10 PM)

..be fair Merc, you're equating weather prediction with climate prediction........i gave an example of this on another thread.......take a NASCAR race. To predict the precise actions of any given car for a few seconds ahead in absolute detail is very tricky......to predict every shake, rattle and roll....................however to predict the bigger picture is easy, the car will go round and round a lot. Perspective makes things a lot easier in prediction.........



Mercnbeth -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/15/2007 3:11:46 PM)

philo,
I'll be very fair.

When they can run any of the global warming models against the documented climate changes that occurred in Earth's history I'll buy into them. "Documented" history as defined by measurable temperatures and activity reflected in ice cores, tree rings, or as noted in my post, human observation.

As someone noted, "scientific proof" is defined as something that can be confirmed by observation and independent testing. We have historical references of climate changes. Why don't any of the scientific global warming computer models, used to reflect impending doom, work to reflect the historical climate of Earth? 

The hurricane example is brought up because if you read those predictions, all reflect a cause of the predicted increase of intensity as being "global warming". The dire predictions for 2006 and 2007 never happened. Whoops! Bad science? Bad model? Bad analysis? Whatever the bad - its the same "weatherman" warning us now about warming who were warning us in the 1970'2 about cooling. 

How can there be any confidence when the same sources predict global warming? Integrity is something that seems not to be required in this brand of "science" as far as these "poles" of scientists; I remind you of the old "3 out of 4 dentists" TV commercial. What they didn't tell you was that those 3 dentists were sent on trips, received free merchandise, and given free samples of those products. The scientists sampled have similar reason to sign onto to theory. Money and perks come with signing on. Same as it does on the other side, except its just pointed out more frequently.



ChicagoSwitchMal -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/15/2007 6:51:20 PM)

I personally don't doubt the earth is warming but I do question how much of it caused by man. But I do remember the "are we headed into another ice age" hype of the 70's. The NASCAR model doesn't really ad up for me beause we know an approximate of what the outcome will be. Meterology, like any science, is in a constant evolution of providing a "better truth" than the one before. First the earth was flat, then it was admitted to at least be curved, then it was accepted to be round. The same computer models that predict (or fail to predict) the weather from week to week are run to similate decades. Like shooting a rocket, if you are off by a degree at launch you're going to be a hundred miles off target when it lands.



Real0ne -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/15/2007 8:41:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChicagoSwitchMal

I personally don't doubt the earth is warming but I do question how much of it caused by man. But I do remember the "are we headed into another ice age" hype of the 70's. The NASCAR model doesn't really ad up for me beause we know an approximate of what the outcome will be. Meterology, like any science, is in a constant evolution of providing a "better truth" than the one before. First the earth was flat, then it was admitted to at least be curved, then it was accepted to be round. The same computer models that predict (or fail to predict) the weather from week to week are run to similate decades. Like shooting a rocket, if you are off by a degree at launch you're going to be a hundred miles off target when it lands.



If you remeber that then you must also remember that everything caused cancer!  LOL

It didnt matter what it was sooner or later it was put on the cancer list.  (meantime everyoine was placing their shorts!!)  LOL

what a fucking racket.



meatcleaver -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/15/2007 11:25:27 PM)

Merc, your arguments against climate change will soon be irrelevent as the dinosaurs whether you are right or wrong. The Chineese have accepted global warming as a fact and have accepted they have to clean up their act on pollution and plan to build a zero emission city with cheap renewable energy within the next 20 years. If they are successful and the west don't get rid of their dependence on fossil fuels, that will put the west squarely in the stone age and hand China the future on a plate because they will be making products even more cheaply than now.

But I still ask those that don't accept climate change, ehow me the respected scientists that say categorily that humans aren't effecting the climate.



meatcleaver -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/15/2007 11:30:18 PM)

I think the west's reluctance to believe in the science it developed throughout its history simply because it is inconvenient for our lazy living, and so many deny climate change (which seems to be more on 'I like my SUV reasons' than reasons of science), suggests the west has become decadent and lost its vision.



Mercnbeth -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/16/2007 6:23:41 AM)

quote:

Merc, your arguments against climate change will soon be irrelevant as the dinosaurs whether you are right or wrong.


MC -
Maybe so - but I notice you don't refute them.

Congrats to the Chinese! They have such a great record with their lead food additives and toy paint I'm sure they'll generate the same results with this effort. To me the lip service they provide on the issue is more an effort of image versus action. The Olympics are coming up. As long as there are people who believe.

"Respected Scientists" still have to put food on the table for their families. Its politically and economically correct to be on global warming side of the issue. There are no Noble Prize nominees coming from the disbelieving or disproving side. When you are asked by a grant committee whether you believe or not and your grant money is contingent on your answer do you think that has an impact? The Spanish Inquisition had more painful methods to get the answer they wanted, but they were no less effective.



meatcleaver -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/16/2007 10:43:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Merc, your arguments against climate change will soon be irrelevant as the dinosaurs whether you are right or wrong.


MC -
Maybe so - but I notice you don't refute them.

Congrats to the Chinese! They have such a great record with their lead food additives and toy paint I'm sure they'll generate the same results with this effort. To me the lip service they provide on the issue is more an effort of image versus action. The Olympics are coming up. As long as there are people who believe.



Merc, your arguments are usually better than a sideswipe but if you read Mattel's statement over the issue they said they were entirely to blame for the recall of all products due to design flaws and not thier Chineese contractors.

As for not refuting the lack of evidence for global warming, I have long since realised it is a waste of time, the vast majority, no, the overwhelming majority of respected scientists believe global warming is due to human activity, no matter what data I put in front of you your mind is made up so it is pointless trying to change it.



Mercnbeth -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/16/2007 11:13:16 AM)

quote:

As for not refuting the lack of evidence for global warming, I have long since realised it is a waste of time, the vast majority, no, the overwhelming majority of respected scientists believe global warming is due to human activity, no matter what data I put in front of you your mind is made up so it is pointless trying to change it.


MC,
You have far more respect for titles and education than I do. However if you read any of the conclusions made by these "respected" scientists they all begin with the words; "in my opinion...". That wording does not represent scientific fact, no matter how "overwhelming" the majority is. I bring up the hurricane season comparison for that very reason. Everyone involved in the prediction was, and is, titled, and "well respected".

All you need to convince me is to apply one future projecting computer model, used to insight panic and paranoia the world, to the documented past. Can't be done. The reason it can't be done that is given is that there are too many variables. I agree there are; making the belief a matter of "faith". Well if you need a religion, in lieu of the choices out there, 'Global Warming' is not too far removed from 'Scientology' or any of the other ones. Except in the case of 'Global Warming' there is an anointed and self appointed 'messiah' living among us. L. Ron's "thetan" has gone vising 'Xenu', the galactic ruler who created humanity 75 Million years ago. 

I think there is a deeply rooted need in humanity to have belief in something. Faced with two of the world's major religions competing to recruit young boys; either to have sex with or fly planes into buildings, the "Global Warming" sect is relatively tame.

Regarding Mattel, of course they are to blame, they trusted the Chinese. However, don't expect them to renew the toy manufacturing in the USA. That would require paying more than $1.00/week for the workers, and subject the product to testing and supervision that would make the purchase cost prohibitive.



philosophy -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/16/2007 11:24:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

As for not refuting the lack of evidence for global warming, I have long since realised it is a waste of time, the vast majority, no, the overwhelming majority of respected scientists believe global warming is due to human activity


...actually MC, you're not being entirely accurate here. The majority of scientists believe that the data supports the hypothesis that human activity is a contributing factor in global warming.
There is a reasoned discussion of what level this contributing influence is at, whether it is reversible and what impact it would have.



meatcleaver -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/16/2007 11:46:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

As for not refuting the lack of evidence for global warming, I have long since realised it is a waste of time, the vast majority, no, the overwhelming majority of respected scientists believe global warming is due to human activity


...actually MC, you're not being entirely accurate here. The majority of scientists believe that the data supports the hypothesis that human activity is a contributing factor in global warming.
There is a reasoned discussion of what level this contributing influence is at, whether it is reversible and what impact it would have.


True. As professional scientists they have to couch their language with some scepticism and consider the quality of evidence. Those that do speak off the record, there gut instinct is that things aren't looking good and we as a species dhould err on the side of caution.



Real0ne -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/16/2007 11:56:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
True. As professional scientists they have to couch their language with some scepticism and consider the quality of evidence. Those that do speak off the record, there gut instinct is that things aren't looking good and we as a species dhould err on the side of caution.


Do people honestly believe this will somehow damage the earth irrepairably?

I thought worst case that I would be having roomates from new york?





meatcleaver -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/16/2007 11:59:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

All you need to convince me is to apply one future projecting computer model, used to insight panic and paranoia the world, to the documented past. Can't be done. The reason it can't be done that is given is that there are too many variables. I agree there are; making the belief a matter of "faith". Well if you need a religion, in lieu of the choices out there, 'Global Warming' is not too far removed from 'Scientology' or any of the other ones. Except in the case of 'Global Warming' there is an anointed and self appointed 'messiah' living among us. L. Ron's "thetan" has gone vising 'Xenu', the galactic ruler who created humanity 75 Million years ago. 

I think there is a deeply rooted need in humanity to have belief in something. Faced with two of the world's major religions competing to recruit young boys; either to have sex with or fly planes into buildings, the "Global Warming" sect is relatively tame.


You're faith that global warming is not made worse by human activity is as much a matter of faith as my belief it is. The only difference is, that if I am wrong, I will look stupid, if you are wrong, your grandchildren will think what a selfish shit you were. Your belief might be more of the religious zealot than my belief considering the damage we are doing to the planet. You only have to look at the depleted habitat around the world to see the humans species is destroying the habitat on which they survive and human activity is storing up disaster for the future generations, so change is needed regardless of global warming, the possibility of global warming should just make us focus more on the damage we are doing.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Regarding Mattel, of course they are to blame, they trusted the Chinese. However, don't expect them to renew the toy manufacturing in the USA. That would require paying more than $1.00/week for the workers, and subject the product to testing and supervision that would make the purchase cost prohibitive.


If Mattel had to charge the prices they would need to charge if they used American labour, Americans probably wouldn't buy their products. Isn't this why GM is having problems? Though maybe GM's problems are more fundemental, they are struggling to make products people want even when they drop prices. However, if GM made their cars with lower cost labour in developing countries they could charge competitive prices and probably get a bigger share of the market.



Real0ne -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/17/2007 12:09:42 AM)



MC;

No percentages are being mentioned.

By what percentage are humans making it worse as compared to anthropogenic please?





meatcleaver -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/17/2007 12:14:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
True. As professional scientists they have to couch their language with some scepticism and consider the quality of evidence. Those that do speak off the record, there gut instinct is that things aren't looking good and we as a species dhould err on the side of caution.


Do people honestly believe this will somehow damage the earth irrepairably?

I thought worst case that I would be having roomates from new york?



It's not a matter of damaging the world irrepairably, it is a matter of whether humans can survive in the new conditions. In the worse case scenario a third of habitatable land would disappear beneath the waves, most major cities will flood and huge quantities of fertile land will go so one can expect civilisation to collapse. That will be nothing new, humans have refused to see the consequences of their actions many times before and destroyed the foundations on which their civilisation has been built because of selfish reasons. As a species we have learnt very little and appear to be incapable of using knowledge we already have to insure ourselves against the possible consequences of our actions. As Kipling pointed out...
CITIES and Thrones and Powers,
   Stand in Time’s eye,
Almost as long as flowers,
   Which daily die:

People are stupid and greedy and will ignore what might happen tomorrow as long as they can make a dollar today.

We won't destroy the planet, we might destroy our civilisation and that will be nothing new for the human spieces, we have made that a habit.



meatcleaver -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/17/2007 12:22:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



MC;

No percentages are being mentioned.

By what percentage are humans making it worse as compared to anthropogenic please?



If you do not see a problem then there is no problem. If you have no intention of seeing a problem you most certainly won't see a problem.

The only time you will see a problem realone is when it jumps up and bites you, by then it will be too late.



samboct -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (10/17/2007 8:16:20 AM)

Merc

A few points-

1)  Weather models predicting temperatures a few weeks out are not being used to predict climate change- different models, so the point that weather is still either unpredictable or chaotic is irrelevant.
2)  The reason that climate modeling is so tough are the historical changes in climate that you're so quick to point out.  Climate change is not a straight line- it's a very complex function- hence it's not easy to show that anthropogenic contributions are actually changing something.  I don't think there's a neat analytical solution- this is lots of number crunching and statistics.  This is why it's taken a few decades to figure out- and needs a lot of computer power.  It's not easy to show like gravity.
3)  If we turn the problem on its head- your position becomes much less tenable.  We know that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing from anthropogenic sources- I think in the US alone, power plants emit 15 billion tonnes of CO2 on an annual basis.  Here are the choices then, for what follows:

a)  Climate stays the same
b)  Climate warms up.
c)  Climate gets colder

Your "gut feel" since its not based on any calculations showing otherwise, is that a) is the correct answer.  Others have justified a) as being the correct answer because the historic record shows that CO2 is a lagging, not a leading indicator of climate change. 

My response is b)- first because I read the results of lab experiments that show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (wanna look at Venus as an example?) and second, because repeated climate modeling attempts, even with different models and starting assumptions, keep converging on the solution that there will be some global warming.  Third- my experience is that when you perturb a system, somethings going to change. 

Your "gut feel" along with most of the deniers, is that the atmosphere represents an endless dumping ground, similar to the Western states of the US where miners just dumped tailings, or the oceans.  We've seen what results when humans view nature as a boundless resource.  Well, why is the atmosphere any different from the land or the water?  Plus, we've already seen what happens with acid rain- or do you want to deny that one as well?, as well as smog, and a whole host of diseases that air borne particulates have caused.  So turning the problem on its head- why should we be able to dump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we want and get away with it?

In contrast to what Michael Crichton would have you believe- when people do  experiments repeatedly (and actually different ones), and keep coming up with a similar answer-I don't view that as consensus, I view that as reproducible.  Do I expect climate modeling to be exact?  Nope, it's a numerical solution- found by iteration (trial and error), not an analytic solution which could be reduced to a few lines of algebra.  Since its a numerical solution, it's also going to be sensitive to starting conditions (which as you note are hard to determine) and modeling assumptions.

I'm sorry, but this whole climate thing smacks of the politicization of science.  And this is an administration where the president cut off US scientists access to the most promising lines of stem cells ceding research preeminence to other countries, doesn't believe in evolution, and has been pushing the idea of "carbon sequestration".  And if anybody believes in the last one- I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I want you to look at.

Sam



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875