This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Scientists Considered Pouring Soot Over the Arctic in the 1970s to Help Melt the Ice - In Order to Prevent Another Ice Age
On April 28, 1975, Newsweek wrote an article stating:
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.
Here is a reprint of the article in the Washington Times, and here is a copy of the 1975 Newsweek article.
Why were scientists considering melting the arctic ice cap?
Because they were worried about a new ice age.
Newsweek discussed the 1975 article in 2006:
In
April, 1975 ... NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a
very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's
weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine
warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political
disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every
nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency
action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been
following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that
the threat was: global cooling...Citizens can judge for
themselves what constitutes a prudent response-which, indeed, is what
occurred 30 years ago. All in all, it's probably just as well that
society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned
in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help
it melt.
Newsweek was not alone. Some scientists and the press have been warning about an ice age off and on for over 100 years.
For example, on February 24, 1895, the New York Times published an article
entitled "PROSPECTS OF ANOTHER GLACIAL PERIOD; Geologists Think the
World May Be Frozen Up Again", which starts with the following
paragraph:
The question is again being discussed
whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the
advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in
the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the
perennial frost and snow of the polar regions.
In September 1958, Harper's wrote an article called "The Coming Ice Age".
On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post wrote an article entitled "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future" which stated:
Get
a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters--the worst may be
yet to come. That's the long-long-range weather forecast being given
out by "climatologists." the people who study very long-term world
weather trends.
In 1972, two scientists - George
J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K.
Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) -
wrote the following letter to President Nixon warning of the possibility of a new ice age:
Dear Mr. President:
Aware
of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to
inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here
recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of
climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators.
We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research.
The
main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of
climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by
civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due
very soon.
The cooling has natural
cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last
ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of
deep sea sediments.
Existing data still do not allow forecast of
the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of
the man’s interference with the natural trends. It could not be
excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern
Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the
cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a
century, if continuing at the present pace.
The practical consequences which might be brought by such developments to existing social institution are among others:
(1)
Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing
seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts
of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected.
(2)
Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as
those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc.With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research …
With best regards,
George J. Kukla (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory)
R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown U)
The
White House assigned the task of looking at the claims contained in the
letter to its science agencies, especially the National Science
Foundation and NOAA, who engaged in a flurry of activity looking into the threat of an ice age.
On August 1, 1974 the White House wrote a letter to Secretary of Commerce Frederick Dent stating:
Changes
in climate in recent years have resulted in unanticipated impacts on
key national programs and policies. Concern has been expressed that
recent changes may presage others. In order to assess the problem and
to determine what concerted action ought to be undertaken, I have
decided to establish a subcommittee on Climate Change.
Out of this concern, the U.S. government started monitoring climate.
As NOAA scientists Robert W. Reeves, Daphne Gemmill, Robert E. Livezey, and James Laver point out:
There
were also a number of short-term climate events of national and
international consequence in the early 1970s that commanded a certain
level of attention in Washington. Many of them were linked to the El
Niño of 1972-1973.
A killing winter freeze followed by a
severe summer heat wave and drought produced a 12 percent shortfall in
Russian grain production in 1972. The Soviet decision to offset the
losses by purchase abroad reduced world grain reserves and helped drive
up food prices.Collapse of the Peruvian anchovy harvest in late
1972 and early 1973, related to fluctuations in the Pacific ocean
currents and atmospheric circulation, impacted world supplies of
fertilizer, the soybean market, and prices of all other protein
feedstocks.The anomalously low precipitation in the U.S.
Pacific north-west during the winter of 1972-73 depleted reservoir
storage by an amount equivalent to more than 7 percent of the electric
energy requirements for the region.
On June 24, 1974, Time Magazine wrote an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" which stated:
As
they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past
several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect
that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are
actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather
varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take
an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the
atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three
decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological
Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather
aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere ...
Whatever
the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious,
if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the
amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic
balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to
another ice age within only a few hundred years.
(here's the printer-friendly version).
Science News wrote an article in 1975 called "Chilling Possibilities" warning of a new ice age.
A January 1975 article from the New York Times warned:
The
most drastic potential change considered in the new report (by the
National Academy of Sciences) is an abrupt end to the present
interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet's
climate for the past 10,000 years.
A May 21, 1975 article in the New York Times again stated:
Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable.
A 1994 Time article entitled "The Ice Age Cometh?" stated:
What
ever happened to global warming? Scientists have issued apocalyptic
warnings for years, claiming that gases from cars, power plants and
factories are creating a greenhouse effect that will boost the
temperature dangerously over the next 75 years or so. But if last week
is any indication of winters to come, it might be more to the point to
start worrying about the next Ice Age instead. After all, human-induced
warming is still largely theoretical, while ice ages are an established
part of the planet's history. The last one ended about 10,000 years
ago; the next one -- for there will be a next one -- could start tens
of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have
already started.
Note 1: One
of the main reasons for writing this essay is to point out that we must
make sure that our "solutions" are not more dangerous than the problems
themselves. For example, the Washington Post noted
that the government forced a switch from one type of chemical to
another because it was believed the first was enlarging the ozone hole.
However, according to the Post, the chemical which the government
demanded be used instead is 4,470 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Currently, "government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth's upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of 'global warming.' " Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being proposed.
And Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:
Suppose
it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way
understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to
set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.Well,
given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably
have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that
would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd
even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right
now." (page 388).
Are those ideas any better than pouring soot on the North Pole?
Our primary responsibility must be to ensure that we are not doing more harm than good.
Note
2: Given that scientists considered pouring soot on the North Pole to
melt the ice in the 1970's, it should come as no surprise that soot may
be having a dramatic effect on the ice sheets and glaciers now.
Note 3: Some global warming advocates warn that a warming-induced shut down of the huge ocean current known as the thermohaline circulation could cause a new ice age in certain limited parts of the world that are warmed by the by the North Atlantic current, such as Iceland, Ireland, the Nordic countries, and Britain. But scientists in the 1970s were talking about something different: the start of a worldwide ice age due, for example, to a 100,000 year cycle in solar radiation hitting the Earth.
Note
4: I studied global warming at a top university in the early 1980's. I
was taught - as Al Gore was taught in college - that temperatures are
directly correlated with CO2 levels.
Note
5: I not only do not receive a penny from oil or any other energy,
industry or political person or organization of any nature whatsoever
(I make a few peanuts from ads on this site, which I do not choose, but
are selected without my input by my ad service), I am also wholly and
completely against big oil, big coal and big nuclear. As I have
repeatedly argued, power should be taken away from the oil giants and
decentralized. I have repeatedly argued for microgeneration and for
alternative energy. These things are beneficial for a number of reasons
- including better health, less corruption of our political systems
through decentralization of power, and a boost to our economy - in
addition to whatever climate benefits they may have.
Note 6: For further information on the swing between warnings of ice ages and runaway global warming, see this and this.
I have verified all of the facts made in the main post above, but I
have not yet verified all of the claims made in the last two
aforementioned web pages.
- advertisements -
and all the sudden 100 years of peer-reviewded climate reporting based on field research and global meteorology
100 years? Say what? The general consensus in the 1970's - not just from Newsweek, but from one of the main proponents of global warming today was that we were cooling.
And that "peer review" has been shown conclusively to be a circle jerk between like minded AGW proponents who sought to discredit and shut out from journals anyone who disagreed with them.
Careful analysis? What have you been reading? When you pick 12 trees out of 50 that support your thesis and ignore the other 38, that's called "cherry picking", not analysis. The Russians insist that CRU ignored any surface station that showed cooling, and only used stations that showed warming. That's not science - that's fraud.
Do yourself a favour - assuming, of course, that you are actually interested in knowing what's going on, as opposed to just bleating "four legs good, two legs bad" - and visit surfacestations.org. Look at their actual pictures of weather stations, and see just how many violate the government's own standards regarding, for example, siting near concrete or asphalt, near air conditioner exhausts, etc.
Finally, if you don't want to believe any of what your lying eyes are showing you, visit wattsupwiththat.com, and view the Greenland ice core data from the US government's NOAA (National Ocean and Aeronautics Administration). If you're going to contend the NOAA is in the pocket of "big oil", then there really is no point in discussing anything with you. But if you have an open mind, and you view the results from the NOAA, you see that Mann et al carefully chose the last 500 years for their famous "hockey stick" chart. But if you go back 2,000 years, you see multiple rises and falls of the same order we've seen in the last 50 years. And if you go back even farther - say, 10,000 years - you see rises and falls that are even larger than the one we're worrying about today.
I'm a friggin' engineer. I don't accept anything on faith - you better show me your experiments, your methods, and your data if you want my buy-in. If you cherrypick your data, and then fudge it, then refuse to release it to your critics (Phil Jones of CRU wrote in an email "I'd rather delete the data then give it to [my critics]"), then discredit in any way possible anyone critical of your data or methods, and finally, when the pressure gets intense, you CLOSE OFF ALL PUBLIC ACCESS to your data, I'm simply not going to believe either your thesis or your projections. (I'm sure you're not keeping up, but climate data at CRU used to be publicly accessible over the Web at CRU; in the last week, access has been removed completely), .
Now, friend cougar, have you visited "climateaudit.com", or "wattsupwiththat" or "surfacestations.org"? I highly doubt it. So, I ask: how can you be so certain that AGW is correct when you've only visited the lickspittle sites that never question anything behind it, and haven't ever visited a site that's critical to see if there are any valid reasons for disbelief? You only read and hear one side of the story, and that's enough to make your mind up? If that's the case, it must be a very small mind indeed.
Cougar is clever, perhaps too clever. The cleverest among us are the ones trying to divide the people from their money, or other cats from their milk.
This is the one short video you absolutely must see on the subject, a new one and it is golden!
Worth 5 minutes of your time and the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.
Enjoy a good laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdbHW9Nlds&feature=player_embedded
Priceless, still laughing
Not so much.He believes the strong delusion.Here is a fun analogy: Scientific "consensus" as relates to AGW is like a group of lemmings sprinting for the cliff.No need for coherent thought,let alone self preservation, just run with it!!
Also, it should be pointed out that self destruction always accompanies the giant levels of pride/arrogance exhibited by the lunatics that are trying to shove AGW down our throats.Or, to put it another way, cultures in full self destruct mode embrace any number of insane delusions...which hasten their fall.AGW fits...and yes, it is also a robbery in progress.The fact that so many believe it in spite of the mountain of evidence which proves it is a scam is disappointing, to say the least.
well it's a bitch that these peer reviewed scientists will all be doing a version of Rosanna Rosanna Dana before long saying "never mind"-
also- when all the self important buffoons in Copenhagen get there by sailing on Kon-Tiki rafts- I may change my mind-
until then I will label it all bullshit
iPath Global Carbon ETN (GRN) not looking good, there cougar,
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GRN&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
meow :(
Saucer of milk, table for two . . .
Shit that was funny Aaron!
Cougar, over time I was very much into your POV. You disappoint.
Try cream... it works better on us... :)
Oh Yay. A bunch of non-scientists will surely come out here to parrot Fox News or Al Gore or whomever, thinking they are qualified to even have an opinion on the matter. Americans are egotistical like that. Nothing quite like arm-chair quarterbacking to make a person feel like he knows something.
JUST RELEASED:
"On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data."
"The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations."
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf
Hey George,
These Guys are into quaternary research, that means they look at the cycle of ice ages, mostly from evidenence on the ground, such as ice core, soil profiles, tree rings that sort of thing. They are not climatologists but 'climate historians'. As soon as they understood the cycles of ice ages and interglacials, and saw that we looked like we are nearing the end of an interglacial (warm period)(1-5ka away?, they started looking for signs of cooling....which they found....ice age cometh. This is only a small group, Climatologists would have told then there were mad and probably did.
But very nicely.
As a interesting aside, sceptic geologists hold these sorts of views also, they look at the past record and conlude warming cannot happen. Sooting the artic ice, was more likely to be an idea from a geologist, inspired by a petroleum explorationist collegue....
As night follows day an ice age IS coming, some saplings might see it in a few thoudand years. Apparently the sun will explode one day too. But we'll all be dead.
I am a geologist, and the Earth's climate has been much warmer AND colder at various times in the geological record. Sea level has varied on the order of hundreds of meters higher and lower, varying due to isostacy as well as climate.
The science of Geology has also demonstrated that the continents move, and that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Not everyone believes those last two theories, but arguments to the contrary are taught in church.
"On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data."
"The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations."
Just released: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf
That's ridiculous... why would the worlds most respected and foremost Global Warming authority CRU East Anglia... Cherry Pick the hot stations to "create" warming when their own data clearly shows the planet is smouldering...
Can't the sheeple see that Polar Bears are being cooked in their own juices these days?
(Good news for polar bear appetizers... those adorable baby ringed seal pups though...)
George Washington, the premise of your story is nonsense.
You fail to heed the difference between
"There existed a few scientists that proposed to soot the poles"
and
"All or nearly-all scientists agreed that sooting the poles was the right course of action."
*****
I know you understand the difference. Stop being dishonest in your arguments.
PS: You could probably find SOME degreed scientists that would advocate just about any crazy idea, including making a case for pre-emptive nucelar war against Russia. Does that make the the crazy idea a good idea. No. And you know that.
Hey! But he cited Newsweek, and according to Carl Bernstein's 1977 Rolling Stone article titled The 400 Hundred (as in 400 plus crooked newsies also on the payroll of the CIA) those Newsweek newsies get paid extra bucks from the CIA (or today it's the Pentagon) through a network of offshoring holding companies.
Isn't that a valid source???
Where's those Mykanos clips???
Sir, I never said anything remotely like:
"All or nearly-all scientists agreed that sooting the poles was the right course of action."
In any event, the story focuses more on how the popular press played it than the scientists themselves.
"story focuses more on how the popular press played it"
Are you saying the intent of the post was not to inflame the "climate science is a fraud" meme?
Otherwise what is the point of dragging something up that started as a brain fart in 1975? And while we're at it there are people who think the earth was created in a literal 6 days, 5,600 years ago. They would have some thoughts on Greenland ice cores, I bet, should we drag them into it to? These are fringe cranks desperate to be validated, they'll say anything to anyone on any subject, and the MSM love them.
There needs to be a line in the sand at some point. Can't keep going back and hauling up old nonsense and saying "but look what someone once said!" because the body of science (which is not even mentioned in your post, as you say) may well have moved the hell on. And regarding whatever the MSM might have once thought would move their wares off the shelf ... these are the same guys gave us Michael Jackson.
cougar
The line in the sand is the arrogance of those that believe that humans can control the climate. Seriously.
Only fools believe that we have a choice between say 1 degree or 2 degrees of warming. Fuck it, I want 1.68 degrees of warming. Make it happen.
The line in the sand is the arrogance of those that believe that humans can control the climate. Seriously.
Only fools believe that we have a choice between say 1 degree or 2 degrees of warming. Fuck it, I want 1.68 degrees of warming. Make it happen.
1.68 degrees? Is that because it's a Fibonacci ratio?
What are you, some kind of technical analyst?
Yes, and I'm going to stand outside in the 7 in 100 years snowstorm in Flopenhagen and protest until I get my promised 1.68 degrees of warming.
I recommend checking out Robert Felix's book 'Not By Fire but By Ice'. He pieces together a lot of research in a very uncomplicated, easy read that makes a solid case for natural cycles causing warming and cooling. I also got the head of our meteorology group to read it and he concurs with Felix (as many are now doing so openly).
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Fire-but-Ice-Dinosaurs/dp/0964874687/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261079174&sr=8-1
"natural cycles causing warming and cooling"
Yup. Called Milankovitch Cycles. First described 100 years ago. Has to do with the wobble of the Earth's axis, precession relative to the solar elliptic, stuff like that. Completely understood. The likely start and duration of next ice age can be calculated in an Excel spreadsheet, baring anything "unusual".
Has absolutely nothing whatever to do with atmospheric physics. Not a single thing. Wobble doesn't enter into the "greenhouse effect" in any way or shape. And the growing consensus among climate researchers (those that want to weigh in on the matter) right now is that the current "unusual" atmospheric physics will probably swamp the next Milankovitch Cycle inputs entirely. The earth might have had its last deep ice age for a good long while.
Folks, the good earth is a cooked goose. Stick a fork in it. And no wobble ain't gonna save us now.
cougar
I believe the correct formula is:
Wobble, wobble, toil and trouble?????
Wobble, wobble, toil and trouble
Take the carbon and blow one more bubble
When the poles shift, we all turn to rubble
Wobble, wobble, toil and trouble
"...Probably swamp the next Milankovitch Cycle."
More pure arrogance. You have absolutely no idea. You don't know what you don't know, except you assume to know everything.
And you finish by making more blanket statements, "And no wobble ain't gonna save us now" after starting with a loaded statement like "growing concensus" thinking it to be "probable."
The only thing growing around here is the pile of my tax dollars which is funding this bullshit.
I don't know. I'm trying very hard not to put the IDIOT stamp on all of your work but......
You're making it very hard. You actually believe in this GW bullshit? I thought you were on a different plane.
#2 is BS though
Which is why Al Gore is wrong
The funny thing is the powers that be that are doing global warming, first did global cooling. Sad but true. What happened was we started warming, and so they dropped global cooling, and changed it to global warming.
It's never been about science, it's been about control, politically and economically.
The fact of the matter is without humans the earth's temperature has gone from ice age to warmer than we are now. We could go either way. Hotter or colder. Generally most people in the know feel it's one of two factors. 1) The Sun 2) The earth's own cooling/warming mechanism
The science has been rigged, courtesy of the Queen of England, and her lackey's. More specifically Prince Phillip.
In a sense they're lucky. Because 99 percent of people who know about 'global warming' never heard the 1st branding of this crisis, called 'global cooling'. If they had, they might have more of a mindset that it's all bs.
We may or may not be headed into an ice age, we may or may not be headed for an even warmer Earth, but these aren't finite, they aren't forever. We'll continue to go through this cycle until something major changes. (like the burning of He instead of H by the sun) - that sort of major change.
Either way, it isn't humans causing it. Anthropogenic climate change is as much bull as the bonuses the squid boys will get this year.
Oh I hate pollution, and believe in superfund as an idea and such (hell I grew up IN one). But, there is reasonable things to do, like clean water, no radioactive waste in ones back yeard type reason, and there's killing 5 billion people off because we are causing climate change. You tell me which side is more whack.
Nulcear breeder power plants until fusion, and even though I like the environment, we have to make both work, and they can. Unless you're scared by the british who claim dirty bombs, and nuclear waste are our biggest concerns with nuke energy. I say the lack of nuclear energy is 100x bigger concern.
Anyways, we're in between ice ages. It can still get warmer or colder. Copenhagen-Bonn is full of it. Just another means of control by those who created, and forced derivatives, and their ill effects down your throat (and demand payment of them through whatever means neccessary = collapsing economy). Another spoonful coming.
A spoonful of shiite makes the medicine go down, the medicine go down, the medicine go down. In the most undelightful way.
Wow on another note, looks like wiki is asking for donations, uh oh.
You wrote: "The funny thing is the powers that be that are doing global warming, first did global cooling. Sad but true. What happened was we started warming, and so they dropped global cooling, and changed it to global warming."
From the "soot" articles posted over the past few days, I think we have a leading indicator of the next scare by the same crowd. AGW is starting to show it's age. They need a shiny, new reason for global governance.
jmc:
Agreed. We won't be able to control the climatic future even if we learn enough to think we know how to do it. But the interest in the issue started about the time of the first Geophysical Year in 1957. Rockets and high flying aircraft were sampling the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Issues eventually identified included the potential for an "ozone hole" over the South Pole due to the presence of fluorocarbons in the stratosphere. Ozone was blocking the Sun’s UV. Fluorocarbons for spray cans and refrigerants were banned in the US by the mid 70’s and today other refrigerants are used in new equipment and the Ozone Hole is getting smaller.
I have no doubt that it will be impossible to get citizens of the world to do what they need to do to control CO2. It is probably too bad for the Polar Bears but this won’t be the first time man’s activities have taken out other species. The Canadians are working on the port facilities at Churchill on the west side of Hudson Bay. Ice in the sea outlet has been diminishing and that polar route is a lot closer to Europe than the Port of NY.
However, as you know, the loss of ice packs on the poles to produce polar open water will mean more snow on the adjacent land masses further south. And then there is the ocean current change hypothesis. But none of us will be around to see if global warming produced another ice age on North America.
jmc:
Agreed. We won't be able to control the climatic future even if we learn enough to think we know how to do it. But the interest in the issue started about the time of the first Geophysical Year in 1957. Rockets and high flying aircraft were sampling the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Issues eventually identified included the potential for an "ozone hole" over the South Pole due to the presence of fluorocarbons in the stratosphere. Ozone was blocking the Sun’s UV. Fluorocarbons for spray cans and refrigerants were banned in the US by the mid 70’s and today other refrigerants are used in new equipment and the Ozone Hole is getting smaller.
I have no doubt that it will be impossible to get citizens of the world to do what they need to do to control CO2. It is probably too bad for the Polar Bears but this won’t be the first time man’s activities have taken out other species. The Canadians are working on the port facilities at Churchill on the west side of Hudson Bay. Ice in the sea outlet has been diminishing and that polar route is a lot closer to Europe than the Port of NY.
However, as you know, the loss of ice packs on the poles to produce polar open water will mean more snow on the adjacent land masses further south. And then there is the ocean current change hypothesis. But none of us will be around to see if global warming produced another ice age on North America.
You make some highly intelligent and knowledgeable comments, hbjork1.
I agree with them all, and please don't forget that O2 appears to be dropping faster than CO2 is rising.
Note, too, that among the 1970s pols to jump on the global cooling bandwagon was none other than freshman Congressman Al Gore.
Dude, I resent that remark about super trader Al Gore. With that Generation Asset Management fund of his (with several of his Goldman Sucks buddies), he is now a major carbon playa. He'll be making big bucks off that superleveraged speculation on carbon trading, carbon offsets and carbon derivatives.
I'm surprised to learn he's a politician, though, I always thought he was the original horror movie star, Igor (or was that I-Gore???).
More Mykanos clips!!!!!
Assuming that's even true ... what does that mean? That Al Gore is a politician? I don't think anyone is questioning that Al Gore is a politician, and least of all Al Gore.
So help us out here.
cougar
global warming is a totalitarian hoax to feed banksters' insatiable lust for lucre....it is junk science in the extreme. lysenko would be proud. and the world dictators are salivating including kenyan born barry soetoro.
when you can outlaw the oceans and the sun you can control planetary temperatures.
This is another quality post from the Anonymous cloudspace.
Global warming IS a totalitarian hoax to feed banksters' insatiable lust for lucre.
Like it or not we are fully aware, you have been EXPOSED!
Thanks you Anonymous! Keep it coming.
LMAO
You are WAY MORE IGNORANT that I've ever thought.
In the past you posted good retorts.
What happened?
Global warming may cause another ice age.
You can look it up!
The disinformation campaign from the death star is strong.
This is the one short video you absolutely must see on the subject, a new one and it is golden!
Worth 5 minutes of your time and the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.
Enjoy a good laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdbHW9Nlds&feature=player_embedded
Priceless, still laughing
Yes, I know.
But my understanding is that scientists in the 1970s were not talking about the shut down of the thermohaline causing an ice age. They were talking about simply the interglacial period petering out, due - for example - to being at the end of the 100,000 year cycle caused by solar variation.
They were missing one enormous data set, stable isotope chemistry, that is used to measure temperature in the geological record. This field did not exist until the late 1970's.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/stableisotopes/a/si_intro.htm
Stable isotope ratios are among the key indicators for changes in climate over time.
And another thing -
CO2 is NOT directly related to temperature. At all. Look it up.
If it were, right now we'd be baking at about 5-10 degrees more than we are. Which is part of the problem the insane ones in Copenhagen can't get their nutty heads around. It doesn't matter that they've been wrong so many times. What matters is that POLITICIANS MUST LISTEN AND ACT NOW.
It's all garbage. They didn't know how to combat the non-existent forthcoming ice age, and would've been wrong to do so.
To insist these same damned scientists (well, a newer crop) know "more and better" is simply the height of idiocy.
The BEST thing to do is sit and wait and see if all their predictions are confirmed. And I mean ALL of them. Because some of their predictions have been so far off it's laughable.
IF the IPCC set a list of 20 monumental changes within a given 5-10 year time frame, and these changes took place, then we should act, and act fast. Rationing, cutbacks, and other drastic measures.
I'm willing to bet, however, that the net effect would be about 1/2 their predictions would come "true", while the other 1/2 would be "explained away"....and they'd claim victory and demand action.
It's all pure BS.
Half their predictions would come true? Er, how about none of them coming true?
Because everything they've predicted so far hasn't even come close to the reality. Atmospheric CO2 has doubled over the last century, but sea levels are roughly the same. My family has owned a cottage on Lake Champlain for almost 100 years. I've been going there for more than 50. Some years, the lake is high; some years, the lake is low. But, on average, it's been pretty much the same since I was a child.
And the "science" behind AGW is abysmal to say the least. Cherrypick your data. Ignore anything that contradicts your thesis. Discredit and attempt to silence critics. Fudge your data, and then hide it. As an engineer, I think it's a complete joke.
KevinB,
Did you really just attempt to make a point about sea levels by referencing Lake Champlain? Really?
Did you really just attempt to make a point about sea levels by referencing Lake Champlain? Really?
Er, yes. My dad was in the navy, and he had a marine chart of the lake posted on the living room wall of the cottage. When I was five - about 50 years ago - he pointed out to me the elevation at Rouses Point, NY, which is just a mile or two away. It was 92.5 feet. Today, the lake's elevation at Rouses Point is ... 92.5 feet. The lake's elevation above sea level doesn't change, and the lake's level doesn't change permanently (but does fluctuate). You don't have to be a rocket science to figure out if the lake's level stays the same, and the elevation above sea level doesn't change, then sea level hasn't changed in fifty years.
Do you see how that works?