It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To Climate Change or not to Climate change

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
The year was 1974 and NOAA's headline was "
NOAA 1974 - Global Cooling Will Starve the World

""The poorest nations, already beset by man-made disasters, have been threatened by a natural one: the possibility of climatic changes ...perhaps throughout the world. The implications for global food and population policies are ominous..." - NOAA, 1974

"
Most forecasts of worldwide food production have been based on the assumption that global weather will stay about the same as it has been in the recent past. But it has already begun to change.

In the Sahelian zone of Africa south of the Sahara, the countries of Chad, The Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, and Upper Volta are enduring a drought that in some areas has been going on for more than six years now, following some 40 previous years of abundant monsoon rainfall. And the drought is spreading—eastward into Ehtiopia and southward into Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, Tanzania, and Zaire.

Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world.

Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes. A drop of only one or two degrees Centigrade in the annual average temperature at higher latitudes can shorten the growing season so that some crops have to be abandoned. [...]

...the average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950's, Iceland's hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. [...]

Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world's hungriest continent. [...]

Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an "ice age."
This is consistent with the documented media hysteria of the 1970s about global cooling and demonstrates, contrary to alarmist arguments - that many climatologists did agree with the media's representation of a coming ice age apocalypse. [2]

I got this in a Email from www.populartechnology.net... Technologynet+%28Popular+Technology.net%29

The NOAA PDF can be found at docs.lib.noaa.gov...=5




posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Where there is money, there will be "science" to back up research for whatever cause that keeps the money flowing in



I am a "Carbon Credit Scam" denier myself.

I really have no idea how bad global changes are impacting us but I know there is massive alarmist activity due to trying to con the world into adopting the Carbon Trading Scam which solves nothing. Well, it does serve the special people... providing traders, politicians, and corrupt "special interests" with Trillions at the expense of the people who have to pay inflated prices so that they can get richer.

It is a solution that needs a big enough panic to implement.

That is why all the "alarmist propaganda" the last couple of decades.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 4-7-2016 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Back in the day we had it right and started making waves that (they ) needed to address .It was pollution to be sure and still is .But its the pollution other then CO2 that should be front and centre . The plants can take up the extra CO2 and it is such a small factor in the larger climate/weather thing , but they wanted to move the conversation away from what the real issue of pollution was and is and so by calling CO2 a pollution they had their meal ticket .

That vid is pretty good .tks,



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
The year was 1974 and NOAA's headline was "
NOAA 1974 - Global Cooling Will Starve the World

""The poorest nations, already beset by man-made disasters, have been threatened by a natural one: the possibility of climatic changes ...perhaps throughout the world. The implications for global food and population policies are ominous..." - NOAA, 1974

"
Most forecasts of worldwide food production have been based on the assumption that global weather will stay about the same as it has been in the recent past. But it has already begun to change.

In the Sahelian zone of Africa south of the Sahara, the countries of Chad, The Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, and Upper Volta are enduring a drought that in some areas has been going on for more than six years now, following some 40 previous years of abundant monsoon rainfall. And the drought is spreading—eastward into Ehtiopia and southward into Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, Tanzania, and Zaire.

Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world.

Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes. A drop of only one or two degrees Centigrade in the annual average temperature at higher latitudes can shorten the growing season so that some crops have to be abandoned. [...]

...the average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950's, Iceland's hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. [...]

Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world's hungriest continent. [...]

Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an "ice age."
This is consistent with the documented media hysteria of the 1970s about global cooling and demonstrates, contrary to alarmist arguments - that many climatologists did agree with the media's representation of a coming ice age apocalypse. [2]

I got this in a Email from www.populartechnology.net... Technologynet+%28Popular+Technology.net%29

The NOAA PDF can be found at docs.lib.noaa.gov...=5

Is this 'headline' supposed to be in this PDF you linked?

Because I don't see "Global Cooling Will Starve the World" in the article at all... have you actually read that PDF?

The article discussing things you've linked in that PDF is titled: "CLIMATE: A KEY TO THE WORLD'S FOOD SUPPLY"

Your opening "quote" is actually from Henry Kissinger (not NOAA - they are quoting him in that article), who addressed the UN General Assembly on April 15, 1974.

Further, if you read the article, you see this:

Many other scientists disagree. J. Murray Mitchell Jr., of the Environmental Data Service, a world authority on climatic change, comments. "We observe these trends, and we know they are real. But we can't find the central tendency, we just don't know how long they will last." Mitchell himself suspects that the present cooling trend will reverse itself rather soon.

E: Oh, wait, you're just quoting the article from some website wholesale. You know, I think that might be against T&C, but I don't really care.

However, given that this website is misrepresenting things, you have now discovered that source to be untrustworthy.
edit on 15Mon, 04 Jul 2016 15:52:49 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
that was a pretty epic beatdown, lol



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Yes I mentioned that I got it off of a website and linked it . I also linked to the NOAA PDF .that was mentioning the cooling trend . I am not sure what the trend is as of late but last I checked it was a trend of 18 years ...I shall see if I can find out what is happening now . Trends can fluctuate it seems as a metric because of the complicated way they look at it .



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Greven

Yes I mentioned that I got it off of a website and linked it . I also linked to the NOAA PDF .that was mentioning the cooling trend . I am not sure what the trend is as of late but last I checked it was a trend of 18 years ...I shall see if I can find out what is happening now . Trends can fluctuate it seems as a metric because of the complicated way they look at it .

Mm-hmm...
There are three scientists named in the relevant article. One is J. Murray Mitchell Jr., who acknowledged the cooling trend and accurately predicted that it would reverse. Another is Dr. James McQuigg, who was more concerned with food supplies. A third is a pretty well-known, Dr. Reid Bryson:

Dr. Reid Bryson, Director of the University of Wisconsin's Institute for Environmental Studies, thinks that the relatively warm period from about 1890 to 1940 was only a brief intermission in the "Little Ice Age," a period of worldwide expansion of snow cover.

He has since passed away (2008), but he was quite prominent in skeptic circles. His name is the only one mentioned who thought the cooling trend would continue. How interesting that he would become a figurehead for those who disagree with human-induced climate change...

He was wrong about the cooling trend; do you trust him for the future of this world?
edit on 17Mon, 04 Jul 2016 17:38:24 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

No one seems to have grip on the future imo . Its a bit early but it should be interesting to see if this present solar cycle will have a signal on the temp. data . Same goes with El Nino data and other parts that contribute one way or another .One aspect is how CO2 was contributing to the climate trend back in 1974 .CO2 has been steady rising since the 1850's but we see times of warming and cooling that seems to be independent of what CO2 is doing . It will take a few PHD's to plot it all out and crunch the numbers and we know that not all PHD's are created equal and that numbers can be fudged and adjusted ....



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Humans haven't just been putting CO2 into the atmosphere. We also put a whole hell of a lot of aerosols, which caused cooling (overall; some cause warming). Our contribution had been decreasing (Clean Air Act helped here), I don't know if that is still the case with China's & India's development.

Interestingly, Dr. Reid Bryson above thought (at one time) that humans contributed to global cooling. He likened this to a human volcano (volcanoes also emit aerosols). He changed his mind later, but c'est la vie.
edit on 18Mon, 04 Jul 2016 18:04:53 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: extra info



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

A lot of PHD's don't agree and offer their own opinions .The rant that the science was settled was only settled in what might have been a group within a group . If ....

The upshot, said Christy, is that while there is a clear warming signal in the satellite temperature data, caution should be used when trying to extrapolate long-term conclusions about climate change based on months and years whose temperatures are obvious outliers driven by El Niño warming events. The 2015-16 El Niño appears to be fading fast. Sea surface temperatures in the east central Pacific have fallen below norms, and a La Niña Pacific Ocean cooling event may be on its way. It is a tiny sample, but 3-year La Niña cooling followed immediately after strong El Niño events in 1972-73 and 1997-98. “We should expect continued, but erratic cooling through the end of the year,” Christy said. “In comparing the current El Niño to the major 1997-98 event, we see that globally the last two months have fallen below the values seen in 1998. The ‘race’ for the hottest year is getting closer. (See attached graph.) Through May, 2016 (+0.67 C warmer than seasonal norms) is leading 1998 (+0.60 C). Annual anomalies, however, are accurate to only ± 0.1 C, so the two years are really in a statistical tie.” Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in May was just off the western coast of the Antarctic Peninsula in the Bellingshausen Sea. May temperatures there averaged 4.10 C (about 7.38 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in May was near South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands in the South Atlantic, where the average May 2016 temperature was 3.08 C (about 5.54 degrees F) cooler than normal for May.
that is true then we can expect a few years of cooling coming our way ..time will tell I guess .



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

If it cools over the next few years due to El Niña, it's unlikely to be very significant. The overall warming trend continues unabated.

However, this appears to be going a bit off-topic of your OP. We have plenty of other threads that get sidetracked into general climate change discussion; we needn't more.
edit on 18Mon, 04 Jul 2016 18:14:30 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

If it cools over the next few years due to El Niña, it's unlikely to be very significant. The overall warming trend continues unabated.

Do you have a recent paper on what the trend is ? I did a quick search but haven't seen anything recent .



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

It depends on where you go for information, and what information you're looking at. For example, here's UAH lower troposphere, which is satellite data. There's even a visual representation. There are also higher layers of the atmosphere mid-troposphere, Tropopause, and lower stratosphere.

As climate change theory predicts, the troposphere is warming and the lower stratosphere is cooling - even in a dataset that skeptics like to point to.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Thanks for the links .If the past has any bearing on the future then the temps will drop .How much and for how long seems hard for any one to say .imo it might be more then most might think because of this solar cycle .That 30 year chart means that 1 degree drop wipes out all the warming ...not what I would call epic or earth shattering .I wont be growing Bananas after all :>(



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1



Thanks for the links .If the past has any bearing on the future then the temps will drop .
Yeah.
Except for that pesky CO2 thing. That really screws up the natural order of things. Humans have gotten really good at doing that.


edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu
Can you explain, in your own words what that chart represents? How is that 10% figure arrived at and what does it represent in terms of radiative forcing?


edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The effect by CO2 on global temperature is logarithmic with diminishing returns.

At 400ppm we are seeing 90.6% of all CO2-related impact on global temperature.

For more info, see IPCC 6.3.4 "Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate", that is where the IPCC equation for the incremental effects are discussed.

ipcc.ch...

if you had read the link I provided with the chart, you would know that already.

(waits for some type of attack on my wording since the numbers are IPCC derived)
edit on 4-7-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




That really screws up the natural order of things. Humans have gotten really good at doing that.
We manufacture warmer cloths because we don't like the cold .We buy air-conditioners because we don't like the heat .We put more insulation in our homes to combat the heat and the cold . We are living longer and are probably more comfortable then Humans were 200 years ago ....life sucks eh ?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


For more info, see IPCC 6.3.4 "Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate", that is where the incremental effects are calculated.
OK...I see that it does show a logarithmic effect but the formulas for a "Simplified expression Radiative forcing" don't seem to account for variables other than changes in concentration. I guess that would be part of the "simplification." Would you agree?

The formula is based on a value for α. Would changing the pressure of CO2 change anything like the absorbtion spectrum of CO2? Would that change the value of α? Would that indicate that the forcing value changes with altitude? How would such a change affect atmospheric warming on the whole? It seems that "saturation" thing might be overly simplistic. Isn't that something that AGW skeptics accuse proponents of? Of ignoring variables?

www.realclimate.org...
edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join