Antarctic ice shelf showing signs of breaking away

[Steerpike]

Please, the scientists were not saying that we were heading into a cooling period in the 1970s. This myth was started by an article that the National Acacemies of Science produced in 1975. It was severly misinterpreted and misread by a Newsweek science writer. Here is a complete report on that issue;
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

This is the problem with relying on secondary sources and not going to the original science, which is the only way to evaluate this sort of thing.

See for example Quaternary Research, 2, 261- 9, 1972: "The end of the present interglacial," an entire volume of scientific research devoted to looking at the science around the current interglacial period. You will find papers there that do in fact indicate that we're coming out of the current interglacial. Of course, we're talking geologic time periods here, not an end to the interglacial in a few decades.

See also Nature, 1974, v252 p 216-8, which predicts we're leaving the interglacial period and entering a new ice age.

Also look at the book Climatic Change, edited by John Gribbin, 1978, which talks about us having moved into the end period of the current interglacial. Again we're talking geologic timescales.

B. J. Mason, QJRMS, 1976, p 473 (Symons Memorial Lecture) predicted a 1 in 5 chance we were moving into a prolonged cold period, though not into a glacial in the near future.

H. Flohn, Quaternary Research, 4, 385-404, 1974, "Background of a geophysical model of the initiation of the next glaciation," in which it is noted that the end of the current interglacial is 'undoubtedly near.'

And of course a key point to keep in mind is we don't have any certainty on the issue because of the nature of the problem.

But to say that scientists were not saying we were moving into a cooling period in the 1970s is demonstrably false. There were certainly scientists saying just that.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is the problem with relying on secondary sources and not going to the original science, which is the only way to evaluate this sort of thing.

See for example Quaternary Research, 2, 261- 9, 1972: "The end of the present interglacial," an entire volume of scientific research devoted to looking at the science around the current interglacial period. You will find papers there that do in fact indicate that we're coming out of the current interglacial. Of course, we're talking geologic time periods here, not an end to the interglacial in a few decades.

See also Nature, 1974, v252 p 216-8, which predicts we're leaving the interglacial period and entering a new ice age.

Also look at the book Climatic Change, edited by John Gribbin, 1978, which talks about us having moved into the end period of the current interglacial. Again we're talking geologic timescales.

B. J. Mason, QJRMS, 1976, p 473 (Symons Memorial Lecture) predicted a 1 in 5 chance we were moving into a prolonged cold period, though not into a glacial in the near future.

H. Flohn, Quaternary Research, 4, 385-404, 1974, "Background of a geophysical model of the initiation of the next glaciation," in which it is noted that the end of the current interglacial is 'undoubtedly near.'

And of course a key point to keep in mind is we don't have any certainty on the issue because of the nature of the problem.

But to say that scientists were not saying we were moving into a cooling period in the 1970s is demonstrably false. There were certainly scientists saying just that.

The majority were saying, by a margin of at least two to one that they were worried more about warming from the increasing GHGs. And the article that kicked off the whole thing, the National Academies of Science report, stated that they considered there was only a 5% chance that we were moving into a rapid cooling event. Mostly they stated that at that time, they simply did not have enough information to make a reasonable judgement.

As far as the Milankovic Cycle cooling, we should be now cooler than we are at present. The climate has deviated from where it should be by past interglacials. The only major change that we can see at present is the massive amounts of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, Cecilie, evolution has been observed, speciation events have been documented, and your refusal to accept reality hardly changes that reality.

Well, Spanky, evolution takes millions of years to happen if it exists at all, so would you like to tell me whose life span is long enough to have "observed" it, much less to have "documented" speciation events? Your willingness to gullibly believe anything you're told, provided the speaker has a degree and a sufficiently impressive grasp of scary technical jargon does not make reality.

Scientific consensus is how we decide what we accept as reality.

No, it isn't. Science is about evidence, facts, and questioning, not taking a poll to see what sounds good to everyone.

You may want to believe diamond is soft, but after thousands of tests, the scientific consensus is that diamonds are hard, your belief affected the tests not one whit.

I love it. You give me an example of empirical fact to argue that science is about consensus. Hey, Mensa Boy. They didn't VOTE on whether or not that diamond is hard. They didn't say, "All the important organizations accept that it's hard, therefore it's hard." Dear GOD, you're a halfwit.

Scientific consensus is that the earth orbits the sun. That masses attract each other.

No, that's not "consensus", dumb shit. That's observed, demonstrated FACT. They didn't vote on it. They didn't take a poll to see if most scientists thought that was the case. In fact, the scientific "consensus" on the subject was that the sun orbited the Earth, and if REAL scientists were as credulous as you are, that's where the matter would have rested. Fortunately, REAL scientists knew enough to keep questioning and find the TRUTH instead of accepting the "consensus".

That micro-organisms can cause disease.

They didn't take a vote on that either, lackwit.

And, based on all the current evidence, that the burning of fossil fuels, and nearly 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 that has resulted, is causing the current global warming.

Yeah, except there IS no current evidence on that. Just guesswork. That's why you have to keep resorting to screaming, "Consensus!" If it were hard, empirically proven fact, you'd be citing it, instead of telling me about all the terribly impressive PhDs who said so, so it must be true.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have yet to see any evidence that you have done any thinking for yourself. Just regurgitated talking points without any evidence to back them up.

You, the master of the cut-and-paste three-page article you don't understand a word of, talking about someone ELSE regurgitating talking points is so damned funny, I can't even describe it adequately. The one time you DID attempt to post something clever you thought of yourself, you ended up contradicting your own post within the same sentence. Step on your johnson much?

 

[Old Rocks]

Seeing a glacier and being told that it has retreated is not "seeing it retreat", Brain Trust.

Seeing the retreat of several glaciers over a period of 40 years is seeing that glacier retreat. As I stated, I have walked on many of these glaciers and snowfields, in the Cascades, the Blues, and the Rockies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cecilie;

Hey, Mensa Boy

That is correct..

 

[Old Rocks]

observed speciation events;

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[Old Rocks]

Cecilie, I must admit that I cheat like hell when discussing science. I actually quote and post what real scientists are saying and writing. Very terrible habit.

 

[Steerpike]

The majority were saying, by a margin of at least two to one that they were worried more about warming from the increasing GHGs. And the article that kicked off the whole thing, the National Academies of Science report, stated that they considered there was only a 5% chance that we were moving into a rapid cooling event. Mostly they stated that at that time, they simply did not have enough information to make a reasonable judgement.

As far as the Milankovic Cycle cooling, we should be now cooler than we are at present. The climate has deviated from where it should be by past interglacials. The only major change that we can see at present is the massive amounts of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

That NAS report didn't "kick off the whole thing." If you look closely, you will observe that 3 of the 5 citations I gave predate the NAS report, one of them by three years.

As for majority versus minority, that is a separate discussion. I merely pointed out that "scientists" in the 1970s were predicting cooling. You said that my statement pertained to a 'myth.' Simply providing a single reference would have been sufficient to establish your myth comment to be incorrect.

 

[xsited1]

Cecilie, I must admit that I cheat like hell when discussing science. I actually quote and post what real scientists are saying and writing. Very terrible habit.

I'm a Scientist. If you need any assistance, please don't hesitate to call.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seeing the retreat of several glaciers over a period of 40 years is seeing that glacier retreat. As I stated, I have walked on many of these glaciers and snowfields, in the Cascades, the Blues, and the Rockies.

Once again, Einstein, no one can SEE a glacier retreat. They move too slowly to observe with the naked eye. Looking at a glacier and even walking on a glacier is NOT "seeing a glacier retreat". One MEASURES glacial movement, which I highly doubt you, personally, have done. So that brings us back to "someone told you", and we all can see how utterly gullible and credulous you are to being told things by anyone with an impressive enough amount of jargon.

 

[Cecilie1200]

cecilie;

Hey, Mensa Boy

that Is Correct..

Flush!

 

[YWN666]

Well, Spanky, evolution takes millions of years to happen if it exists at all, so would you like to tell me whose life span is long enough to have "observed" it,

Wow, you're clueless about a number of subjects. Consider me shocked!

To answer your question, insects. Read more on the topic here:

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

 

[YWN666]

Cecilie, I must admit that I cheat like hell when discussing science. I actually quote and post what real scientists are saying and writing. Very terrible habit.

If the facts are there to be quoted to make a point, there is no reason to retype it in your own words. Cecilie just can't keep up in the debate and she has to find something to pick on and when she talks herself into a corner and can't answer without embarrassing herself, she posts "Flush" and then runs like a coward. She's like 1,000 other trolls I've seen on message boards. Ho-hum.

 

[deaddude]

Screwing up currents ? Is that something that humans won't be able to adjust to ?

This particular quote is stupid, and not the sort of forgivable stupid that happens to everyone. The fact that I know this person to usually be intelligent can only lead me to believe that this is willfully stupid.

Could we adapt to changing currents? Depending on the severity, maybe. However less adaptable animals, say fish, could not. How many people rely on fisheries for food? How many countries rely on fishing for a large portion of their economy?

If you severely alter the ocean currents you shift weather patterns, you get coral bleachings, it is bad.

 

[Old Rocks]

This particular quote is stupid, and not the sort of forgivable stupid that happens to everyone. The fact that I know this person to usually be intelligent can only lead me to believe that this is willfully stupid.

Could we adapt to changing currents? Depending on the severity, maybe. However less adaptable animals, say fish, could not. How many people rely on fisheries for food? How many countries rely on fishing for a large portion of their economy?

If you severely alter the ocean currents you shift weather patterns, you get coral bleachings, it is bad.

Actually you do much more than that. Look up the effects of the Younger Dryas, and its suspected cause.

 

[KittenKoder]

Wow, you're clueless about a number of subjects. Consider me shocked!

To answer your question, insects. Read more on the topic here:

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

I like that page. Thanks for a great link.

 

[YWN666]

I like that page. Thanks for a great link.

You're welcome. It seems to have shut Cecilie up and that can only be a good thing. Unfortunately, she'll just go to another thread and pretend to know everything.

 

[Zoomie1980]

This particular quote is stupid, and not the sort of forgivable stupid that happens to everyone. The fact that I know this person to usually be intelligent can only lead me to believe that this is willfully stupid.

Could we adapt to changing currents? Depending on the severity, maybe. However less adaptable animals, say fish, could not. How many people rely on fisheries for food? How many countries rely on fishing for a large portion of their economy?

If you severely alter the ocean currents you shift weather patterns, you get coral bleachings, it is bad.

Global warming is a GOOD thing, I never understood why so many think is such a bad thing.

hundreds of millions of acres of new arable farmland. Cold water fish will simply migrate to the arctic and be replaced by an explosion of warm water fish. I'm quite partial to Red Snapper myself... So what if we can catch them off the Newfoundland coast?

And if my winters warmed up 20deg it would only get down to 0 here instead of -20. That's a GOOD thing, too. I'd use less energy and have a smaller carbon footprint and a larger bank account

 

[KittenKoder]

Global warming is a GOOD thing, I never understood why so many think is such a bad thing.

hundreds of millions of acres of new arable farmland. Cold water fish will simply migrate to the arctic and be replaced by an explosion of warm water fish. I'm quite partial to Red Snapper myself... So what if we can catch them off the Newfoundland coast?

And if my winters warmed up 20deg it would only get down to 0 here instead of -20. That's a GOOD thing, too. I'd use less energy and have a smaller carbon footprint and a larger bank account

Um ... you do realize that a large amount of our water is frozen right? That if all that ice melts our land area will decrease to almost nothing. This is the reason 'global warming' would be a bad thing, problem is that people are just too stupid to look at the root of a problem, instead they just go for the symptoms.