Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
ughThere never was a scientific consensus for global cooling.
Only a few magazine articles.
Nice try though.
I'm sorry, let me shut off the hypocrisy detector... that alarm is just so loud when you peg the needle like that.There never was a scientific consensus for global cooling.
Only a few magazine articles.
Nice try though.
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
Wiki....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
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").
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").
it did not turn 35 it turned 98.
AP Story Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.
Associated Press story published in the Washington Post, November 2, 1922.
Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
When the media reports on news, it looks for fringe elements and fantastical claims, rather than 'boring' real science.
Unscientific America
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.
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.
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.
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.
A consensus is 7 papers against 42? Get your head out of your ass, boy!
In the last ten years the real consensus, hundreds of papers against maybe 1 or 2 in scientific journals,.
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.
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.
A consensus is 7 papers against 42? Get your head out of your ass, boy!
In the last ten years the real consensus, hundreds of papers against maybe 1 or 2 in scientific journals,.
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.
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.
A consensus is 7 papers against 42? Get your head out of your ass, boy!
In the last ten years the real consensus, hundreds of papers against maybe 1 or 2 in scientific journals,.
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").
I think anyone who relies on major media for their understanding of anything scientific is an idiot.
