History channel presents "little ice age"

[Old Rocks]

Remote Sensing : Feature Articles

What does that article have to do with Tyndall's observations or Arrnhenius?

Did you happen to notice that the article included a graph of absorption bands? Plus the links to other information concerning the interaction of atmospheric gasses and sunlight? Perhaps you need some remedial reading classes?

 

[Old Rocks]

Oldsocks, will make one statement or claim, and when it blows up in his face he will immediatley go to another. He will say something ignorant and absolute, and when he is called on it he changes it to something else.... Pathetic...

In other words, you cannot counter with real science so once again resort to yap-yap.

 

[code1211]

Pretty easy. The industrial revolution began in 1760, the LIA ended in 1850. The Maunder Minimum, the cause of the LIA, had it's last major dip just before 1850.

Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you have the beginning of the burning of fossil fuels and the end of the Maunder Minimum close together. The earth warmed. And continued to warm, as the solar activity increased until about 1950. It has decreased since then, but the earth has been warming at a much faster rate in the last 60 years. Warming with a decrease in solar activity.

Of course, you could try to find some science to prove that the GHGs from fossil fuels has had no effect on the increase in temperature, but the search would be futile. Science as in peer reviewed journals, not the meanderings of an obese drugged out radio jock.

So you are claiming that the 90 years of overlap caused the warming?

Quit posturing already, you know thats BS...

Warming and cooling globally does not happen like flipping a switch. There are a few warmer days one year. The ice stays longer or melts sooner. The changes happen quietly and slowly over years.

The progression of the increasing cooling ended in the 1600's and the beginning of the warming started then.

The start of the warming pre-dates the start of the coal burning which defines the Industrial Revolution.

 

[code1211]

We all know that periodically the climate has changed in the world.

We also know why the climate has changed and we know that different events can effect the climate.

What we do NOT as yet KNOW, (but certainly some of us suspect) is that mankind's industrial pollution is now causing the climate to change.

Just because the climate changed due to non-manmade events, does not mean that mankind's activities might not also be able to change our climate.

Life itself has changed the world's atmosphere many times and the climate changed as a result of LIFE the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

During the Caroniferous, both temperature and CO2 were much higher than today and then both reduced to levels similar to today while the level of oxygen rose to a very high level.

Insects the size Futons crawled around giving rise to the Orkin-iferous period during which they were systematically killed off.

Okay, I made that period up.

The reason the insects got to be so large was that in the very oxygen rich air they could take in enough oxygen to support their limbs. Today, they cannot so their size is limited.

The atmosphere changes and we can have some effect on it, but the world operates the way it does and if we cause enough aggravation the world will simply shuck us off as it did with the big bugs. However, as happened with the big bugs, things might just change around us to the way things have been for the majority of the world's history and we will suffocate in the poisenous air.

The way things are right now is an anomoly compared to the way things usually are around here.

Planetary Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

That is correct. But your article acts as if a rapid return to a high CO2 level would be without side effects. No matter what the beginning level of GHGs, when there has been a very rapid increase, there has been a period of extinction. Also, we have 7 billion people dependent on agriculture which is dependent on stable weather. A rapid increase in GHGs destabalizes the weather, according to the past geological records.
Methane catastrophe

With the exception of two or three examples out of thousands, when the weather destabalizes, the GHG's change. The extent of the destabalization of the climate dictates the change in the GHG's in the vast majority of the instances. To imply the reverse is disingenuous. Climate causes the change in the CO2 levels; not the other way around.

The agriculture that supports the 7 or so billion people also depends almost exclusively on the burning of fossil fuels to plant, tend, harvest, ship, process, package, deliver and prepare for consumption their goods.

If we don't not burn fossil fuels, the planet enters into a lethal planetary famine and we cut back to about a billion people who will soon die from the plagues resulting from 6 billion unburied bodies.

 

[konradv]

Pretty easy. The industrial revolution began in 1760, the LIA ended in 1850. The Maunder Minimum, the cause of the LIA, had it's last major dip just before 1850.

Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you have the beginning of the burning of fossil fuels and the end of the Maunder Minimum close together. The earth warmed. And continued to warm, as the solar activity increased until about 1950. It has decreased since then, but the earth has been warming at a much faster rate in the last 60 years. Warming with a decrease in solar activity.

Of course, you could try to find some science to prove that the GHGs from fossil fuels has had no effect on the increase in temperature, but the search would be futile. Science as in peer reviewed journals, not the meanderings of an obese drugged out radio jock.

So you are claiming that the 90 years of overlap caused the warming?

Quit posturing already, you know thats BS...

Warming and cooling globally does not happen like flipping a switch. There are a few warmer days one year. The ice stays longer or melts sooner. The changes happen quietly and slowly over years.

The progression of the increasing cooling ended in the 1600's and the beginning of the warming started then.

The start of the warming pre-dates the start of the coal burning which defines the Industrial Revolution.

That doesn't rule out the possibility that warming could have more than one cause, however. Whatever natural cycle was occurring to warm the climate would be augmented by the accumulation of gases which trap infra-red radiation.

 

[code1211]

So you are claiming that the 90 years of overlap caused the warming?

Quit posturing already, you know thats BS...

Warming and cooling globally does not happen like flipping a switch. There are a few warmer days one year. The ice stays longer or melts sooner. The changes happen quietly and slowly over years.

The progression of the increasing cooling ended in the 1600's and the beginning of the warming started then.

The start of the warming pre-dates the start of the coal burning which defines the Industrial Revolution.

That doesn't rule out the possibility that warming could have more than one cause, however. Whatever natural cycle was occurring to warm the climate would be augmented by the accumulation of gases which trap infra-red radiation.

Augmenting and causing are two very different things. The effect of CO2 in causing warming is almost never, it seems, the prime mover in temperature change. The effect is slight and the other causes, most notably TSI, seems to be the prime causer.

Earthly causes can have an effect on TSI, but those causes must be so pronounced that they are hard to miss. Extinction level events and so forth...

The closure of the Isthmus of Panama seems to have started the alternate Ice Age/Interglacial Cycle we now find ouselves in, so we know for certain that ocean currents have huge effects on climate globally and our daily experience shows that these currents have a huge effect on local climates.

Historically, the rise and fall of CO2 is an effect, not a cause. As such, charging that CO2 causes climate change is asserting that the future causes the past.

 

[konradv]

Warming and cooling globally does not happen like flipping a switch. There are a few warmer days one year. The ice stays longer or melts sooner. The changes happen quietly and slowly over years.

The progression of the increasing cooling ended in the 1600's and the beginning of the warming started then.

The start of the warming pre-dates the start of the coal burning which defines the Industrial Revolution.

That doesn't rule out the possibility that warming could have more than one cause, however. Whatever natural cycle was occurring to warm the climate would be augmented by the accumulation of gases which trap infra-red radiation.

Augmenting and causing are two very different things. The effect of CO2 in causing warming is almost never, it seems, the prime mover in temperature change. The effect is slight and the other causes, most notably TSI, seems to be the prime causer.

Earthly causes can have an effect on TSI, but those causes must be so pronounced that they are hard to miss. Extinction level events and so forth...

The closure of the Isthmus of Panama seems to have started the alternate Ice Age/Interglacial Cycle we now find ouselves in, so we know for certain that ocean currents have huge effects on climate globally and our daily experience shows that these currents have a huge effect on local climates.

Historically, the rise and fall of CO2 is an effect, not a cause. As such, charging that CO2 causes climate change is asserting that the future causes the past.

You're missing the point. Of course there are other stronger determinants of climate, that's a given, NOT something that's being over-looked, particularly by climate scientists. The concern is over the effect of ADDED pressure towards higher tempeartues from man-made sources. There's been 30-40% rise in CO2 over the last ~200 years. Since additional CO2 adds to the "Greenhouse Effect" on a log scale, that's still a 11-15% rise. Hardly what I would call minor.

 

[editec]

Almost without exception in this debate we see the same approach



I'm not a climatologist but I play one here on the internet.

And I'm telling you that the vast majority of real scientists who are warning us about Global Warming are all involved in a giagantic conspiracy so they can get piss-assed grants to study science, even though they've ALWAYS gotten grants to study science since long before this issue ever came to our attention.

Now seriously, folks.

CAn you really wonder why we dismiss the above POV as inherently silly?

 

[skookerasbil]

bottom line..........nobody knows dick about what the conditions are going to be in 5 or 10 years. C

Too.....computer "models" are gay.......to illustrate, there is a hurricane in the Atlantic right now and they dont know whether it will brush the east coast or be 400 miles out to sea. This is because their models dont know how quick the high sitting out in the Pacific Northwest is going to take to get to the east coast. And we're talking just 7 DAYS FROM NOW

This is yet another thing that the k00ks have fallen for hook, line and stinker........being hopelessly duped by the phrase "computer model"......as if there is ANY sort of certitude in THAT!!!

These climate nutters would happily buy a bag of dog poop for $5,000.00 if it were wrapped in "Computer Model" wrapping paper.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The only thing you missed is that the 'current' rage concerning GW was started in 1858 with Tyndall's observations of the obsorption bands of various GHGs, including water vapor. In 1896, Arrnhenius quantified the data, and made some pretty good predictions concerning the warming.

The most recent rage preceding the current one was "the coming ice age" and global cooling; to be a "rage" the public must be taken by it.

Did not happen. For gods sake, look up the data.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

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.

Oh please, stop being dishonest.

The fact is that in the early 1970's a 'global cooling' scare was in full force, both from the media and other sources.


Another Ice Age? - TIME

Newsweek on the cooling world

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko]Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age - YouTube[/ame] (whole lotta links when you click the 'show more' button)

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Zoom, so you get your science from Newsweek? Or Time? Ratchet it up just a little and try the Scientific American. Then, if you can stand it, try Science and Nature. There are also free Publications of the National Academy of Science.

What we are talking about here is what the scientists were saying, not a bunch of journalists too lazy to find out what was really being said and published.

 

[konradv]

The most recent rage preceding the current one was "the coming ice age" and global cooling; to be a "rage" the public must be taken by it.

Did not happen. For gods sake, look up the data.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

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.

Oh please, stop being dishonest.

The fact is that in the early 1970's a 'global cooling' scare was in full force, both from the media and other sources.


Another Ice Age? - TIME

Newsweek on the cooling world

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko]Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age - YouTube[/ame] (whole lotta links when you click the 'show more' button)

Well, if you were really being even-handed and willing to look at the facts critically instead of through a political prism, you'd have to ask yourself why they changed their minds so fast. Then, there's also the problem that there wasn't any kind of consensus, but simply a theory put forth in a few papers. What's your take-away message here? Scientists don't know what they're talking about? That would include the skeptics also, wouldn't it? As far as I'm concerned, the whole "New Ice Age" story doesn't help the denier/skeptic cause at all and don't understand the point of continually repeating it!!!

 

[editec]

The vast climatologist CONSPIRACY.

The whole idea is so silly it boggle the mind that some of you believe it.

 

[code1211]

That doesn't rule out the possibility that warming could have more than one cause, however. Whatever natural cycle was occurring to warm the climate would be augmented by the accumulation of gases which trap infra-red radiation.

Augmenting and causing are two very different things. The effect of CO2 in causing warming is almost never, it seems, the prime mover in temperature change. The effect is slight and the other causes, most notably TSI, seems to be the prime causer.

Earthly causes can have an effect on TSI, but those causes must be so pronounced that they are hard to miss. Extinction level events and so forth...

The closure of the Isthmus of Panama seems to have started the alternate Ice Age/Interglacial Cycle we now find ouselves in, so we know for certain that ocean currents have huge effects on climate globally and our daily experience shows that these currents have a huge effect on local climates.

Historically, the rise and fall of CO2 is an effect, not a cause. As such, charging that CO2 causes climate change is asserting that the future causes the past.

You're missing the point. Of course there are other stronger determinants of climate, that's a given, NOT something that's being over-looked, particularly by climate scientists. The concern is over the effect of ADDED pressure towards higher tempeartues from man-made sources. There's been 30-40% rise in CO2 over the last ~200 years. Since additional CO2 adds to the "Greenhouse Effect" on a log scale, that's still a 11-15% rise. Hardly what I would call minor.

Another factor to consider is the impact of the increase in the CO2. I've read in this long investigation that as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the magnitude of the impact decreases.

It's along the order of for every degree of additional warming caused by CO2 the icremental increase of CO2 must double compared to the previous increment.

By this calcualtion, before we can add enough CO2 to the air to create the increase in temperatures predicted by those who are calling for panicked reaction, the air would become poisenous to breathe.

We asphysciate and the problem is solved.

More seriously, though, even within the normal ebb and flow of annual temperature, CO2 seems to be a very weak driver of climate. Why did the fairly predictable rise of temperatures since 1980 dip in the middle of the time span and stall out lately? CO2 has risen relentlessly until the Big 0 decided to remedy the economic problems of the country. The "Big 0 Effect" has been to stop everything, including CO2 Production, that has anything to do with manufacturing.

He said that he would stop the rise of the oceans which was arguably not happening. Apparently, he was referring to the rise that Kennedy predicted would lift all boats.

 

[code1211]

The only thing you missed is that the 'current' rage concerning GW was started in 1858 with Tyndall's observations of the obsorption bands of various GHGs, including water vapor. In 1896, Arrnhenius quantified the data, and made some pretty good predictions concerning the warming.

The most recent rage preceding the current one was "the coming ice age" and global cooling; to be a "rage" the public must be taken by it.

Did not happen. For gods sake, look up the data.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

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.

Just for clarification, does the whole 97% agree that human beings are causing 100% of the warming? Is there a lesser % claiming that 100% is caused by human beings? Do any of these scientists think that human beings are causing warming in part, but that part is small? Partial? Fractional?

Do any of the 97% think that there might be other factors like, oh, the Sun that might have any impact at all on the Climate.

If the 97% monolithically support the notion that 100% of the warming is caused by human beings, as you imply, they are worthy of our scorn and derision, not our respect.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The most recent rage preceding the current one was "the coming ice age" and global cooling; to be a "rage" the public must be taken by it.

Did not happen. For gods sake, look up the data.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

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.

Oh please, stop being dishonest.

The fact is that in the early 1970's a 'global cooling' scare was in full force, both from the media and other sources.


Another Ice Age? - TIME

Newsweek on the cooling world

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko]Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age - YouTube[/ame] (whole lotta links when you click the 'show more' button)

Well, Zoom, so you get your science from Newsweek? Or Time? Ratchet it up just a little and try the Scientific American. Then, if you can stand it, try Science and Nature. There are also free Publications of the National Academy of Science.

What we are talking about here is what the scientists were saying, not a bunch of journalists too lazy to find out what was really being said and published.

I was replying to your dishonest answer to American Horse, O.R. See the bolded in the first post, above. 'Global cooling' was all the rage back in the 1970's. You're dishonest in pretending is wasn't.

Per your post . . . didn't bother to check the links on the youtube vid, did you?

 

[konradv]

The most recent rage preceding the current one was "the coming ice age" and global cooling; to be a "rage" the public must be taken by it.

Did not happen. For gods sake, look up the data.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

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.

Just for clarification, does the whole 97% agree that human beings are causing 100% of the warming? Is there a lesser % claiming that 100% is caused by human beings? Do any of these scientists think that human beings are causing warming in part, but that part is small? Partial? Fractional?

Do any of the 97% think that there might be other factors like, oh, the Sun that might have any impact at all on the Climate.

If the 97% monolithically support the notion that 100% of the warming is caused by human beings, as you imply, they are worthy of our scorn and derision, not our respect.

No one said humans cause 100% of warming. Where is that implied? I'd think you'd want to point that out BEFORE talking about derision. THAT can easily be turned around by sloppy posting.

 

[konradv]

Did not happen. For gods sake, look up the data.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

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.

Oh please, stop being dishonest.

The fact is that in the early 1970's a 'global cooling' scare was in full force, both from the media and other sources.


Another Ice Age? - TIME

Newsweek on the cooling world

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko]Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age - YouTube[/ame] (whole lotta links when you click the 'show more' button)

Well, Zoom, so you get your science from Newsweek? Or Time? Ratchet it up just a little and try the Scientific American. Then, if you can stand it, try Science and Nature. There are also free Publications of the National Academy of Science.

What we are talking about here is what the scientists were saying, not a bunch of journalists too lazy to find out what was really being said and published.

I was replying to your dishonest answer to American Horse, O.R. See the bolded in the first post, above. 'Global cooling' was all the rage back in the 1970's. You're dishonest in pretending is wasn't.

Per your post . . . didn't bother to check the links on the youtube vid, did you?

It was "all the rage" only in the minds of the skeptics/deniers. I suggest you do some research, like reading Old Rocks' links, before parroting what you've heard from obviously biased sources.

 

[konradv]

Augmenting and causing are two very different things. The effect of CO2 in causing warming is almost never, it seems, the prime mover in temperature change. The effect is slight and the other causes, most notably TSI, seems to be the prime causer.

Earthly causes can have an effect on TSI, but those causes must be so pronounced that they are hard to miss. Extinction level events and so forth...

The closure of the Isthmus of Panama seems to have started the alternate Ice Age/Interglacial Cycle we now find ouselves in, so we know for certain that ocean currents have huge effects on climate globally and our daily experience shows that these currents have a huge effect on local climates.

Historically, the rise and fall of CO2 is an effect, not a cause. As such, charging that CO2 causes climate change is asserting that the future causes the past.

You're missing the point. Of course there are other stronger determinants of climate, that's a given, NOT something that's being over-looked, particularly by climate scientists. The concern is over the effect of ADDED pressure towards higher tempeartues from man-made sources. There's been 30-40% rise in CO2 over the last ~200 years. Since additional CO2 adds to the "Greenhouse Effect" on a log scale, that's still a 11-15% rise. Hardly what I would call minor.

Another factor to consider is the impact of the increase in the CO2. I've read in this long investigation that as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the magnitude of the impact decreases.

It's along the order of for every degree of additional warming caused by CO2 the icremental increase of CO2 must double compared to the previous increment.

By this calcualtion, before we can add enough CO2 to the air to create the increase in temperatures predicted by those who are calling for panicked reaction, the air would become poisenous to breathe.

We asphysciate and the problem is solved.

More seriously, though, even within the normal ebb and flow of annual temperature, CO2 seems to be a very weak driver of climate. Why did the fairly predictable rise of temperatures since 1980 dip in the middle of the time span and stall out lately? CO2 has risen relentlessly until the Big 0 decided to remedy the economic problems of the country. The "Big 0 Effect" has been to stop everything, including CO2 Production, that has anything to do with manufacturing.

He said that he would stop the rise of the oceans which was arguably not happening. Apparently, he was referring to the rise that Kennedy predicted would lift all boats.

That's a lot of rhetoric with nothing to back it up. If you're going to make those kinds of blanket statements, give us some links or show us your math!

 

[American Horse]

Oh please, stop being dishonest.

The fact is that in the early 1970's a 'global cooling' scare was in full force, both from the media and other sources.


Another Ice Age? - TIME

Newsweek on the cooling world

Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age - YouTube (whole lotta links when you click the 'show more' button)

Well, Zoom, so you get your science from Newsweek? Or Time? Ratchet it up just a little and try the Scientific American. Then, if you can stand it, try Science and Nature. There are also free Publications of the National Academy of Science.

What we are talking about here is what the scientists were saying, not a bunch of journalists too lazy to find out what was really being said and published.

I was replying to your dishonest answer to American Horse, O.R. See the bolded in the first post, above. 'Global cooling' was all the rage back in the 1970's. You're dishonest in pretending is wasn't.

Per your post . . . didn't bother to check the links on the youtube vid, did you?

It was "all the rage" only in the minds of the skeptics/deniers. I suggest you do some research, like reading Old Rocks' links, before parroting what you've heard from obviously biased sources.

Zoom and I were alive and aware, of what the "rages" were back in the day. You are in denial of the definition of what "all the rage" means. It means in the popular mind. How much of the public was reading scientific journal sources in the 70's who weren't also scientists?