World drought and Global Warming

Back in the 70's they were telling us the entire globe was going to freeze over....when that didn't happen they came up with another scare tactic: the globe is going to burn up, and soon. It's bullshit. And let's say they are right that eventually the earth will burn up.... Well eventually the suns going to burn out....but it doesn't look like it'll be doing that in any of our lifetimes or that we can stop it. One day, human life and all other life will cease to exist....but not today or in the foreseeable future.
So, we have another liar here. No, they were not telling us that there was an ice age imminent in the 1970's. You are just repeating a lie.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Ice age predicted in the 70s
"[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice)



In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

GlobalCooling.JPG


The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
 
Back in the 70's they were telling us the entire globe was going to freeze over....when that didn't happen they came up with another scare tactic: the globe is going to burn up, and soon. It's bullshit. And let's say they are right that eventually the earth will burn up.... Well eventually the suns going to burn out....but it doesn't look like it'll be doing that in any of our lifetimes or that we can stop it. One day, human life and all other life will cease to exist....but not today or in the foreseeable future.
So, we have another liar here. No, they were not telling us that there was an ice age imminent in the 1970's. You are just repeating a lie.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Ice age predicted in the 70s
"[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice)



In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

GlobalCooling.JPG


The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
Why is that everyone I talk to about this stuff who remembers the 70's remember stories about global cooling?
 
Still cannot believe people keep denying climate change. Some folks here think they are more knowledgeable than scientists.
We don't doubt 'climate change', we doubt the chicken little overexaggeration that the sky is falling.We are all supposed to be dead for a few years now according to past chicken little crusades from the cult of global warming. It's a joke and you are a joke if you buy into it.
Link? Of course no link. You are a lying bastard.
 
There is no overpopulation problem. That's a myth started by Malthus.
I thought you were ignoring me for proving you're a homophobic liar?

Since you've lied so much before, I wouldn't trust you if you said the sky was blue and the ground was brown.

As for overpopulation, you're either lying or ignorant. Our civilization, while fairly robust, is still a house of cards. As Hurricane Katrina showed, break the system down and not only will lawlessness quickly break out, but without the supply system, people will quickly run out of food and water. Even people living in rural areas will be affected if trains and 18-wheelers stop running for 24 hours.

When President Bush signed the biodiesel bill and farmers started turning their corn into fuel, the price of corn quickly shot over the ability of poorer nations to pay. Starvation seemed imminent. There were other factors, but this seemingly "eco-friendly" change in policy had a noticeable effect on feeding the global population. While the current system is supporting most of the world's population, the evidence shows how quickly we can go from "sustainable" to "overpopulated".

https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2009/967/ifdp967.pdf
However, in absolute terms, these are sizeable effects. We estimate that the increase in world biofuels production accounts for just over 12% of the rise in global food prices, with increased U.S. biofuel production accounting for roughly 60% of this total increase.
You're an idiot. As always. We could fit the entire population of the world in the state of Texas. The math has already been done and it is solid. You're going to lose this argument like you lose all the rest you have. I'm game to smack your dumb ass down again.
Really? How how do you propose the feed and provide water for that dense a population. Again, you love to repeat idiotic lies.
 
There is no overpopulation problem. That's a myth started by Malthus.
I thought you were ignoring me for proving you're a homophobic liar?

Since you've lied so much before, I wouldn't trust you if you said the sky was blue and the ground was brown.

As for overpopulation, you're either lying or ignorant. Our civilization, while fairly robust, is still a house of cards. As Hurricane Katrina showed, break the system down and not only will lawlessness quickly break out, but without the supply system, people will quickly run out of food and water. Even people living in rural areas will be affected if trains and 18-wheelers stop running for 24 hours.

When President Bush signed the biodiesel bill and farmers started turning their corn into fuel, the price of corn quickly shot over the ability of poorer nations to pay. Starvation seemed imminent. There were other factors, but this seemingly "eco-friendly" change in policy had a noticeable effect on feeding the global population. While the current system is supporting most of the world's population, the evidence shows how quickly we can go from "sustainable" to "overpopulated".

https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2009/967/ifdp967.pdf
However, in absolute terms, these are sizeable effects. We estimate that the increase in world biofuels production accounts for just over 12% of the rise in global food prices, with increased U.S. biofuel production accounting for roughly 60% of this total increase.
You're an idiot. As always. We could fit the entire population of the world in the state of Texas. The math has already been done and it is solid. You're going to lose this argument like you lose all the rest you have. I'm game to smack your dumb ass down again.
Really? How how do you propose the feed and provide water for that dense a population. Again, you love to repeat idiotic lies.
Oh yeah, asshat? Explain this then;
download.jpg
 
There is no overpopulation problem. That's a myth started by Malthus.
I thought you were ignoring me for proving you're a homophobic liar?

Since you've lied so much before, I wouldn't trust you if you said the sky was blue and the ground was brown.

As for overpopulation, you're either lying or ignorant. Our civilization, while fairly robust, is still a house of cards. As Hurricane Katrina showed, break the system down and not only will lawlessness quickly break out, but without the supply system, people will quickly run out of food and water. Even people living in rural areas will be affected if trains and 18-wheelers stop running for 24 hours.

When President Bush signed the biodiesel bill and farmers started turning their corn into fuel, the price of corn quickly shot over the ability of poorer nations to pay. Starvation seemed imminent. There were other factors, but this seemingly "eco-friendly" change in policy had a noticeable effect on feeding the global population. While the current system is supporting most of the world's population, the evidence shows how quickly we can go from "sustainable" to "overpopulated".

https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2009/967/ifdp967.pdf
However, in absolute terms, these are sizeable effects. We estimate that the increase in world biofuels production accounts for just over 12% of the rise in global food prices, with increased U.S. biofuel production accounting for roughly 60% of this total increase.
You're an idiot. As always. We could fit the entire population of the world in the state of Texas. The math has already been done and it is solid. You're going to lose this argument like you lose all the rest you have. I'm game to smack your dumb ass down again.
Really? How how do you propose the feed and provide water for that dense a population. Again, you love to repeat idiotic lies.
That's covered in the article provided. It would only take a water source the size of the Columbia river in the Pacific NW to provide enough water.
 
Back in the 70's they were telling us the entire globe was going to freeze over....when that didn't happen they came up with another scare tactic: the globe is going to burn up, and soon. It's bullshit. And let's say they are right that eventually the earth will burn up.... Well eventually the suns going to burn out....but it doesn't look like it'll be doing that in any of our lifetimes or that we can stop it. One day, human life and all other life will cease to exist....but not today or in the foreseeable future.
So, we have another liar here. No, they were not telling us that there was an ice age imminent in the 1970's. You are just repeating a lie.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Ice age predicted in the 70s
"[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice)



In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

GlobalCooling.JPG


The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
Why is that everyone I talk to about this stuff who remembers the 70's remember stories about global cooling?
Perhaps you should talk to someone that has some brains. Not only was I there during the '70's, shortly after it was published, I read the National Academy paper of 1975 concerning global warming and cooling. It stated that there was not enough known at that time to make definitive prediction.
 
So many in denial. Trump believes in it when its serving him, otherwise he denies it.

Donald Trump cites global warming as reason to build his Atlantic wall in Co Clare

He has called global warming a “hoax” and a “con job” in the past.

(snip)

Now, the company has filed a planning application with Clare County Council – complete with a 242 page Environmental Impact Statement prepared by an Irish consultancy firm - for the wall to be built.

The application, first reported today by Politico, cites local regulations pertaining to “rising sea levels and increased storm frequency and wave energy associated with global warming” as cause for the wall to be built.

The company’s concern for global warming is at odds with Trump’s own views on the subject, which he has called a “con job” and a “hoax” in the past.

Donald Trump cites global warming as reason to build his Atlantic wall in Co Clare
Another reason to distrust all politicians. :)

As it is, nature loves balance. If too many people are causing an imbalance in the ecosystem, nature will reduce the number of people thus restoring balance. Problem solved, nothing to worry about.

Nothing to worry about except that many people will suffer, many animals will die out, and the like.
 
No wonder you are so ignorant. So you get your science from popular news magazines. Ever consider reading the articles that the scientists actually write?
Oh yeah, asshat? Explain this then;
View attachment 89509
It's a fake. Unsurprising coming from you.

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com
1101070409_400.jpg
Prove this is false:
screenhunter_7460-feb-26-19-37.gif
 
Logicalscience

Given this conflict, I decided to buy the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report and see for myself. The report is titled "Understanding Climatic Change, A Program for action" and is featured in the picture above. A picture that I took with my very own camera. The ISBN# is 0-309-02323-8.

So what does it say inside?

At the bottom of page V of the forward it says:
Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines it's course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes.Wow. It says we "can't predict climate". So what does it say we need to do? What actions are needed? Lets skip to page 9 which is the beginning of the chapter titled Summary of Principle Conclusions and Recommendations. It lists 6 recommendations. They are:

1) Adopt a national program to study the climate
2) Analyze climate data from conventional instruments, satellites, etc.
3) Develop a program to monitor and index all climate data.
4) Accelerate research on climate.
5) Adopt an international program to study climate. (same as #1 but just international)
6) Try to reconstruct the history of the earths pre-industrial climate via tree rings, fossils, etc.

PNAS articles are available on the net for free. So google that paper and see for yourself what was really said.
 
The only salvation is to turn the economy over to the EnviroMarxists perpetrating the scam

Agreed. They have already capitalized handsomely on this "humans are making the sun angry" scare.

Even if there is global warming I highly doubt humans have much of anything to do with it, so quit wasting our money.

And even if humans were the cause, what of it? You really think the world should sink trillions into this Don Qixote windmill instead of taking care of the billions suffering and dying right now? You really think China, Russia, India, Indonesia, Brazil are going to go gung ho like the leftists in the USA and cut back on whatever you demand? Our greatest efforts won't make a dent on the human factor. Move on and get serious about far, far more grave immediate concerns.
 

Forum List

Back
Top