global warming turns 35

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2008
63,085
9,749
2,040
Portland, Ore.
In 1975, when the wingnuts claim that everybody was screaming "another ice age coming", this paper was published in a peer reviewed journal.

Clear predictions were made, and turned out to be quite accurate concerning the overall temperature rise. The 'sceptics' have yet to publish any such papers. In fact, they cannot even get the past decade right.


"Global Warming" turns 35 : A Few Things Ill Considered

Global Warming" turns 35
Category: Announcements • general • other blogs • papers
Posted on: July 30, 2010 7:57 PM, by coby

This is not a reference to the recent three decades of rapidly increasing global temperatures, rather it is a reference to an aniversary of the first appearance of the term "global warming" in the peer reviewed literature. The paper was by Wally Broeker and titled "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?"



Real Climate has an interesting post on the details of this paper. The short version is that despite numerous considerations in the paper that have played out differently than hypothesized, the overall prediction of temperature by the end of the 20th century was remarkably accurate.


In this paper, Broecker correctly predicted "that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide", and that "by early in the next century [carbon dioxide] will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years". He predicted an overall 20th Century global warming of 0.8ºC due to CO2 and worried about the consequences for agriculture and sea level.
[....]
To those who even today claim that global warming is not predictable, the anniversary of Broecker's paper is a reminder that global warming was actually predicted before it became evident in the global temperature records over a decade later (when Jim Hansen in 1988 famously stated that "global warming is here").
 
To those who even today claim that global warming is not predictable, the anniversary of Broecker's paper is a reminder that global warming was actually predicted before it became evident in the global temperature records over a decade later

That's why I like to say, IT'S THE GASES, STUPID. Given the Laws of Chemistry and Physics, if you have an increase in GHGs, warming is inevitable, regardless of whether an increase can be demonstrated at the present time. It's simple logic.

I also love when the deniers scream, "in the 70s they said we'd be going into another Ice Age". A meme whose aim, I guess, is to suggest that "scientists don't know what they're talking about", when it SHOULD be making them wonder, "what made scientists change their minds so fast?"!
 
I happen to believe scientists know what they are talking about all the time, unless they don't. How does the fact that one paper was published in 1975 change the fact that the consensus at that time was that the Earth was cooling? That is the part that always gets me when alarmists want me to believe something, it they have facts on their side why do they have to lie about history?
 
I happen to believe scientists know what they are talking about all the time, unless they don't. How does the fact that one paper was published in 1975 change the fact that the consensus at that time was that the Earth was cooling? That is the part that always gets me when alarmists want me to believe something, it they have facts on their side why do they have to lie about history?

Why do you have to lie continously about a consensus that did not exist?

http://www.aiacny.org/2009/June/GLOBAL WARMING AND THE ARCHITECT- June 09.pdf

Scientific studies in the 1970's re: global cooling”
“Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek,
NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers
in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers
(42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2.”
 
images
 
There never was a scientific consensus for global cooling.

Only a few magazine articles.

Nice try though.
 
There was enough "scientific consensus" to do a couple of cover stories in national "news" magazine.

BTW...Consensus isn't scientific proof, Monica.

I will accept that as an apology.

Your really have nothing but insults.

It's pretty sad.
 
There was enough "scientific consensus" to do a couple of cover stories in national "news" magazine.

BTW...Consensus isn't scientific proof, Monica.

I will accept that as an apology.

Your really have nothing but insults.

It's pretty sad.
If anyone has no proof it's you.

That lack of proof is why you deserve nothing but insults.

But you keep swingin' away...If nothing else, the law of averages is on your side. :lol:
 
In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[2] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend.[3] The actual increase in this period was 29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse gases in 1968.[4] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's warming effects.[5] In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that a very significant warming of global climate was probable.[6]

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I happen to believe scientists know what they are talking about all the time, unless they don't. How does the fact that one paper was published in 1975 change the fact that the consensus at that time was that the Earth was cooling? That is the part that always gets me when alarmists want me to believe something, it they have facts on their side why do they have to lie about history?

Why do you have to lie continously about a consensus that did not exist?

http://www.aiacny.org/2009/June/GLOBAL WARMING AND THE ARCHITECT- June 09.pdf

Scientific studies in the 1970's re: global cooling”
“Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek,
NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers
in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers
(42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2.”

Yep, the popular press ran with scientific fringe elements. They never talked to real scientists, and still don't. :cuckoo:

You IDIOT! Where the fuck do you think the press came up with the idea of global cooling? Did they fucking pull it out of thin air? They talked to fucking scientist and reported on the consensus, the exact same way they do today. If you want to insists that there was no consensus back then then you will have to admit one does not exist now.

Why is it you ignore facts simply because they disagree with your theories? The consensus existed back then, and it went the other way 50 years before that, and back again to cooling if you go back another 50 years. But don't worry, that was just the popular press then to, and the real scientists always believed in global warming.
 

Forum List

Back
Top