How the media has warped the debate about AGW
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Wrong again knucklehead. Antarctica is losing ice. Yes, sea ice is increasing, but not in a statistically significant way, but the land ice is losing ice and the trend is accelerating.
As a whole, all of the earth's ice is melting.
Quote from futurecurrents:
Wrong again knucklehead. Antarctica is losing ice. Yes, sea ice is increasing, but not in a statistically significant way, but the land ice is losing ice and the trend is accelerating.
As a whole, all of the earth's ice is melting.
Let's see what NSIDC/NASA has to say on the antarctic ice.
'The Antarctic passed its summer minimum ice extent, reaching the second highest level in the satellite record at this time of year, primarily due to continued higher-than-average ice in the Weddell Sea.'
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Anyone attempting to state that the increase in Antarctic ice is not significant is simply not paying attention.
Pre-1970s
J. Murray Mitchell showed as early as 1963 a multidecadal cooling since about 1940.[2] At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966 Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years." In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."[4]
[edit]1970s awareness
The temperature record as seen in 1975; compare with the next figure.
Instrumental record of global average temperatures.
Concern peaked in the early 1970s, though "the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then" [2] (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming). This peaking concern is partially attributable to the fact much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. However, climate scientists were aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[12]). Despite that, in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports, and "unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North America in 1972 and 1973...pushed the issue into the public consciousness".[2]
In the 1970s the compilation of records to produce hemispheric, or global, temperature records had just begun.
A history of the discovery of global warming states that: While neither scientists nor the public could be sure in the 1970s whether the world was warming or cooling, people were increasingly inclined to believe that global climate was on the move, and in no small way.[13]
J. Murray Mitchell showed as early as 1963 a multidecadal cooling since about 1940.[2] At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966 Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years." In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."[4]
[edit]1970s awareness
The temperature record as seen in 1975; compare with the next figure.
Instrumental record of global average temperatures.
Concern peaked in the early 1970s, though "the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then" [2] (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming). This peaking concern is partially attributable to the fact much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. However, climate scientists were aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[12]). Despite that, in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports, and "unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North America in 1972 and 1973...pushed the issue into the public consciousness".[2]
In the 1970s the compilation of records to produce hemispheric, or global, temperature records had just begun.
A history of the discovery of global warming states that: While neither scientists nor the public could be sure in the 1970s whether the world was warming or cooling, people were increasingly inclined to believe that global climate was on the move, and in no small way.[13]
If you really want to know about the 70's ice age thing.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
"Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting âglobal coolingâ and an âimminentâ ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests."
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
"Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting âglobal coolingâ and an âimminentâ ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests."
right, when you dumbasses finally figure out you're wrong you'll say the same thing about now.
It's the same thing as a six year old crying for a "do over " because he lost.
Nobody rational should take you guys serious.
Nobody rational can not understand the simple fact that when a dominant greenhouse gas goes up by 35% then temps will also.
You are an idiot.
Let's just call everyone names... that will really prove your point.
What part of CO2 lags global temperatures by 800 years do you fail to understand?