Another Ice Age?

[Zeb_Carter]

So it's a blog, it was quoting a Time Mag. report from 1974 when science thought there was going to be an Ice Age soon due to global cooling.

Now you may not remember that era but I was living large then and then the freezing summers came and I lost it all...corn furtures went in the toilet and I lost everything.

 

[Guest]

So it's a blog, it was quoting a Time Mag. report from 1974 when science thought there was going to be an Ice Age soon due to global cooling.

Now you may not remember that era but I was living large then and then the freezing summers came and I lost it all...corn furtures went in the toilet and I lost everything.

It quoted "a piece" of a Time magazine article. Couple of paragraphs.

No author, no study data, no idea of how much information they didn't use in the blog.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

It quoted "a piece" of a Time magazine article. Couple of paragraphs.

No author, no study data, no idea of how much information they didn't use in the blog.

Of course it only quoted a piece of the article, who the hell has time to type in the whole thing. 1974 was way before the internet became a public network. Way before Time had computers. Back when type was set almost by hand and the copy was done on a typewritter.

So how could there be a link to provide. Science has come a long way since then. I doubt if Time still has that issue of the magazine in hardcopy or in any form of electronic copy. Mayby a micro-fiche of it.

 

[Guest]

Of course it only quoted a piece of the article, who the hell has time to type in the whole thing. 1974 was way before the internet became a public network. Way before Time had computers. Back when type was set almost by hand and the copy was done on a typewritter.

So how could there be a link to provide. Science has come a long way since then. I doubt if Time still has that issue of the magazine in hardcopy or in any form of electronic copy. Mayby a micro-fiche of it.

They could have printed it if they chose to, Zeb.

Here's a link to Time Magazine Archives. Online. Goes back to 1923.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/

 

[Aurora Black]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

They could have printed it if they chose to, Zeb.

Here's a link to Time Magazine Archives. Online. Goes back to 1923.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/

But if you want more than this....

Jun. 24, 1974 In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest...

It will cost you some bucks. So if I had the hardcopy of the article I would just type the relavent paragraphs.

Also...

Time Archive Citation Guide
Because the TIME articles in our electronic archive do not have the original page numbers and many don't even give the author's name, students and researchers frequently ask how to cite the articles properly

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Sweet dreams 'Rora.

 

[Guest]

But if you want more than this....
It will cost you some bucks. So if I had the hardcopy of the article I would just type the relavent paragraphs.

Also...

Zeb, remember the blog title?

NewsBusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias

Whoever heard of a news blog without a subscription to Times? At any rate, the bit they provided in the blog was in the "paid for" section, anyway. Apparently, all they needed to do was highlight and save.

Or they could have scanned a hard copy. My son can work ours.

The reason they didn't provide the entire article is because they didn't wish to, Zeb. It made his point better if we readers weren't provided with all of the relevant information.

 

[Guest]

And I'm done. Again.

 

[shereads]

God, I hope so! Can it start in August?

 

[The_Darkness]

How about the History degree holder chiming in?

Right now, temperatures are about the same as they were during the Roman Empire times, as far as we can figure. "As far as we can figure" is very important, we'll come back to that alot.

Lots of science folks have given up on glacial core samples for temperature readings. They're accurate to a point, but due to melting and freezing and melting and freezng before finally freezing, they're just too damn spotty. That combined with the fact that they can only go back a few hundred years has people grasping at straws.

Ocean floor samples seem to be where it's at right now. Ocean floor sediment chemistry varies directly, albeit slightly behind, atmospheric chemistry. And what are these people finding? We have a natural cycle of warming and cooling trends that man kind is virtually unable to affect, bend, or change.

We are just coming out of an ice age...just a little one, but from the mid 1400's to about 1850, we had a little ice age. It even has a name to us history folks, we like to call it The Little Ice Age. Global temperatures were 5 degrees on average cooler as far as we can figure. Today's scientists would have you stocking up on canned goods and shotguns if the temperature dropped 5 degrees globally in 20 years. Or would they?

Most of our atmospheric and temperature data is compared to averages from the late 60's and early 70's. Yup, we're on average, warmer than it was then. But they don't tell you that we're not that much warmer on average than we were in the 30's and 50's. If you pay attention to your radio and television stations during your local weather, you'll see that a large number of record highs and lows were recorded in the early 1900's. 1905, 1913, and 1931-1935 are common ones around the midwestern US.

Now, as to the "as far as we can figure" part. We've had accurate thermometers that are set to accepted standards for about 200 years or so. Maybe longer, hell, let's give it 500 years....it should be between the two somewhere. 500 years of data is a LOT of data, right? I mean, that's a huge chunk of the 7000 years of recoreded human history, right? Sure it is.

The Earth has been around for over 4.5 Billion years. I don't care what religious thought you prescribe to on that note, that's a fact. 500 years out of 4,500,000,000 is pretty insignificant. Let's put it into perspective though.

That's One 9 millionth of the Earth's existance. For human terms, if we assume an average life span of 80 years, that equates to 4.6572 hours. Now, describe the next 4 hours and 39 minutes to someone. That someone is going to not only tell you everything about you, but everything that will happen, and infact, how you'll die. Sound plausible? Not really. So tell a Chaotician, a Physician, and a Psychologist...those people get paid to analyze everything and everyone that is relavant to human behavior. Think they've got the answers?

Neither do the climatologist. They're looking at 500 pieces of a puzzle that's got 4,500,000,000 pieces and they're trying to describe the other 4,499,999,500 of them to you.

That's not saying we need to trash the environment, but really....global warming? Sure, I believe it, just as sure as I believe in the last major ice ages, continental drift, cave dudes and dudettes, and wooly mammoths. I just don't think that humans are a powerful enough presence to even touch it unless we deliberately tried.

 

[Aurora Black]

Science/History talk is sexy.

 

[The_Darkness]

Science/History talk is sexy.

So is your AV.

 

[shereads]

How about the History degree holder chiming in?

Right now, temperatures are about the same as they were during the Roman Empire times, as far as we can figure. "As far as we can figure" is very important, we'll come back to that alot.

Lots of science folks have given up on glacial core samples for temperature readings. They're accurate to a point, but due to melting and freezing and melting and freezng before finally freezing, they're just too damn spotty. That combined with the fact that they can only go back a few hundred years has people grasping at straws.

Ocean floor samples seem to be where it's at right now. Ocean floor sediment chemistry varies directly, albeit slightly behind, atmospheric chemistry. And what are these people finding? We have a natural cycle of warming and cooling trends that man kind is virtually unable to affect, bend, or change.

We are just coming out of an ice age...just a little one, but from the mid 1400's to about 1850, we had a little ice age. It even has a name to us history folks, we like to call it The Little Ice Age. Global temperatures were 5 degrees on average cooler as far as we can figure. Today's scientists would have you stocking up on canned goods and shotguns if the temperature dropped 5 degrees globally in 20 years. Or would they?

Most of our atmospheric and temperature data is compared to averages from the late 60's and early 70's. Yup, we're on average, warmer than it was then. But they don't tell you that we're not that much warmer on average than we were in the 30's and 50's. If you pay attention to your radio and television stations during your local weather, you'll see that a large number of record highs and lows were recorded in the early 1900's. 1905, 1913, and 1931-1935 are common ones around the midwestern US.

Now, as to the "as far as we can figure" part. We've had accurate thermometers that are set to accepted standards for about 200 years or so. Maybe longer, hell, let's give it 500 years....it should be between the two somewhere. 500 years of data is a LOT of data, right? I mean, that's a huge chunk of the 7000 years of recoreded human history, right? Sure it is.

The Earth has been around for over 4.5 Billion years. I don't care what religious thought you prescribe to on that note, that's a fact. 500 years out of 4,500,000,000 is pretty insignificant. Let's put it into perspective though.

That's One 9 millionth of the Earth's existance. For human terms, if we assume an average life span of 80 years, that equates to 4.6572 hours. Now, describe the next 4 hours and 39 minutes to someone. That someone is going to not only tell you everything about you, but everything that will happen, and infact, how you'll die. Sound plausible? Not really. So tell a Chaotician, a Physician, and a Psychologist...those people get paid to analyze everything and everyone that is relavant to human behavior. Think they've got the answers?

Neither do the climatologist. They're looking at 500 pieces of a puzzle that's got 4,500,000,000 pieces and they're trying to describe the other 4,499,999,500 of them to you.

That's not saying we need to trash the environment, but really....global warming? Sure, I believe it, just as sure as I believe in the last major ice ages, continental drift, cave dudes and dudettes, and wooly mammoths. I just don't think that humans are a powerful enough presence to even touch it unless we deliberately tried.

What if you're wrong?

 

[Aurora Black]

So is your AV.

Thank you! I try.

 

[The_Darkness]

What if you're wrong?

If I'm wrong, we won't know for thousands of years. But, let's give you some examples from my childhood, let's all give a warm round of applause for the 80's!

Remember when climatologists said there'd be no more drinkable water after like 1995? I remember something about people going out to the desert in long caravans just to get water from the last source in the US. What the fuck was that? That was what the alarmist climatological experts were talking about.

Mt. Krakatoa blew in the early 1900's....can't remember the date off hand, I want to say it was 1905 or 1913, but anyway, it blew, and it blew big. Volcanologists have said that the amount of ash, dust, and crap put up into the air was the same output as the entire Industrial Revolution of Europe and America combined. That was one volcano...one big one, but one volcano. Mt. Saint Helens was another huge one....I can't remember what it was equvalent to...something like 1880-1900's pollution world wide.

I could be wrong. I've been wrong before, and odds are astronomically in the favor of me being wrong in the future. However, the scientific community doesnt' like it when historians start pointing out that for PhD holders in chemistry, physics, climatology, meterology, and other ologies, their sample size is devastatingly small. Any fool can say "Hey, this year is warmer than last year, suppose that's bad?" and that's pretty much what they've done.

Remember, it's all about those 4 hours and 39 minutes.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Zeb, remember the blog title?

NewsBusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias

Whoever heard of a news blog without a subscription to Times? At any rate, the bit they provided in the blog was in the "paid for" section, anyway. Apparently, all they needed to do was highlight and save.

Or they could have scanned a hard copy. My son can work ours.

The reason they didn't provide the entire article is because they didn't wish to, Zeb. It made his point better if we readers weren't provided with all of the relevant information.

Do you have access to the pay section or do you have a copy of the '74 Time mag? How do we know what was in the article? How do you know the article wasn't all about the science of the time stating that the Ice Age is coming, the Ice Age is coming?

You sure do jump to baseless conclusions about thing you don't agree with.

 

[The_Darkness]

Thank you! I try.

And we very much appreciate the effort

 

[Zeb_Carter]

How about the History degree holder chiming in?

Right now, temperatures are about the same as they were during the Roman Empire times, as far as we can figure. "As far as we can figure" is very important, we'll come back to that alot.

Lots of science folks have given up on glacial core samples for temperature readings. They're accurate to a point, but due to melting and freezing and melting and freezng before finally freezing, they're just too damn spotty. That combined with the fact that they can only go back a few hundred years has people grasping at straws.

Ocean floor samples seem to be where it's at right now. Ocean floor sediment chemistry varies directly, albeit slightly behind, atmospheric chemistry. And what are these people finding? We have a natural cycle of warming and cooling trends that man kind is virtually unable to affect, bend, or change.

We are just coming out of an ice age...just a little one, but from the mid 1400's to about 1850, we had a little ice age. It even has a name to us history folks, we like to call it The Little Ice Age. Global temperatures were 5 degrees on average cooler as far as we can figure. Today's scientists would have you stocking up on canned goods and shotguns if the temperature dropped 5 degrees globally in 20 years. Or would they?

Most of our atmospheric and temperature data is compared to averages from the late 60's and early 70's. Yup, we're on average, warmer than it was then. But they don't tell you that we're not that much warmer on average than we were in the 30's and 50's. If you pay attention to your radio and television stations during your local weather, you'll see that a large number of record highs and lows were recorded in the early 1900's. 1905, 1913, and 1931-1935 are common ones around the midwestern US.

Now, as to the "as far as we can figure" part. We've had accurate thermometers that are set to accepted standards for about 200 years or so. Maybe longer, hell, let's give it 500 years....it should be between the two somewhere. 500 years of data is a LOT of data, right? I mean, that's a huge chunk of the 7000 years of recoreded human history, right? Sure it is.

The Earth has been around for over 4.5 Billion years. I don't care what religious thought you prescribe to on that note, that's a fact. 500 years out of 4,500,000,000 is pretty insignificant. Let's put it into perspective though.

That's One 9 millionth of the Earth's existance. For human terms, if we assume an average life span of 80 years, that equates to 4.6572 hours. Now, describe the next 4 hours and 39 minutes to someone. That someone is going to not only tell you everything about you, but everything that will happen, and infact, how you'll die. Sound plausible? Not really. So tell a Chaotician, a Physician, and a Psychologist...those people get paid to analyze everything and everyone that is relavant to human behavior. Think they've got the answers?

Neither do the climatologist. They're looking at 500 pieces of a puzzle that's got 4,500,000,000 pieces and they're trying to describe the other 4,499,999,500 of them to you.

That's not saying we need to trash the environment, but really....global warming? Sure, I believe it, just as sure as I believe in the last major ice ages, continental drift, cave dudes and dudettes, and wooly mammoths. I just don't think that humans are a powerful enough presence to even touch it unless we deliberately tried.

Good piece. And I don't know why when I mention global warming everyone thinks I don't believe in it, I do. It is definatly warming up. What I don't belive in is that man is responsible. That's absurd horse pucky. Man I so insignificant when it comes to the global climate.

That's my belief. Man is not causing global warming! The sun, the cycle of the earths orbit around the sun, the wobble inheirent in the earths rotation, the venting of greenhouse gases by the planet. Those gases are far more harmful than us puny humans could produce in a life time of life times.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[shereads]

If I'm wrong, we won't know for thousands of years.

No, that thousands-of-years thing is if you're mostly right, but a little wrong, as opposed to if you're completely right.

If you're wrong, and the most widely held beliefs about global warming are true, we're feeling the effects now and have a couple of decades, max, to fend off the worst-case consequences.

Wait a second...You don't really think this whole controversy came about because people became alarmed at the consequences of our behavior to people living thousands of years from now, do you?

The futility of this debate just leaped up to Level Orange.

Seriously, Dark, even us tree-huggers value our own conveniences above the interests of the Eloi, for christsake! For all any of us know, the human race thousands of years from now might be all floaty and wan-looking like those thin uber-blondes who donned togas and early Beatles haircuts in the Rod Taylor version of The Time Machine. They did nothing but pluck apricots and lie around, making daisy chains and waiting to be eaten by their herdsmen. If they expect me to use mass transportation and adjust my air conditioning to save them from extinction, they can bite me.

Seriously. What if you're not partially wrong, but wrong-wrong, as in the other side is right? What is it you're being asked to do that is so onerous, compared to the consequences to your grandchildren's generation if you are wrong?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

If I'm wrong, we won't know for thousands of years. But, let's give you some examples from my childhood, let's all give a warm round of applause for the 80's!

Remember when climatologists said there'd be no more drinkable water after like 1995? I remember something about people going out to the desert in long caravans just to get water from the last source in the US. What the fuck was that? That was what the alarmist climatological experts were talking about.

Mt. Krakatoa blew in the early 1900's....can't remember the date off hand, I want to say it was 1905 or 1913, but anyway, it blew, and it blew big. Volcanologists have said that the amount of ash, dust, and crap put up into the air was the same output as the entire Industrial Revolution of Europe and America combined. That was one volcano...one big one, but one volcano. Mt. Saint Helens was another huge one....I can't remember what it was equvalent to...something like 1880-1900's pollution world wide.

I could be wrong. I've been wrong before, and odds are astronomically in the favor of me being wrong in the future. However, the scientific community doesnt' like it when historians start pointing out that for PhD holders in chemistry, physics, climatology, meterology, and other ologies, their sample size is devastatingly small. Any fool can say "Hey, this year is warmer than last year, suppose that's bad?" and that's pretty much what they've done.

Remember, it's all about those 4 hours and 39 minutes.

And part of those 4 hours and 39 minutes have been hotter than it is right now. In fact we're still on the cool side of the what the temp. was back in the middle ages, if I remember correctly.

In the days of old when knights where bold and it was hot as hell in the summer.

 

[3113]

Sorry dudette, but do you have any sources to back up you statement of 'All' or have you poled every climatologist in the world?.

No. Just this:

Harvard University Press

Allow me to highly the most important part:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Somehow, I don't think your incomplete blog really compares.....

 

[The_Darkness]

Good piece. And I don't know why when I mention global warming everyone thinks I don't believe in it, I do. It is definatly warming up. What I don't belive in is that man is responsible. That's absurd horse pucky. Man I so insignificant when it comes to the global climate.

That's my belief. Man is not causing global warming! The sun, the cycle of the earths orbit around the sun, the wobble inheirent in the earths rotation, the venting of greenhouse gases by the planet. Those gases are far more harmful than us puny humans could produce in a life time of life times.

That's all I'm saying.

Exactly.

To dredge up another debate, how about the Ozone layer and man kind's destruction of it? Really? A satelite picture from 1970-whatever and OMFG...it's the end of the world as we know it. Chloro-Floural Carbons! Hairspray! Too fucking many cattle! We heard it all. Simple 9th grade science tells us this: The most harmful thing to Ozone, is Ozone.

If you want me to explain the science behind that, it's pretty simple, but you should really just take my word for it. If there were gasses in the ozone layer that were destroying it and making this hole thing larger, the whole layer would have been destroyed a long, long time ago.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

No, that thousands-of-years thing is if you're mostly right, but a little wrong, as opposed to if you're completely right.

If you're wrong, and the most widely held beliefs about global warming are true, we're feeling the effects now and have a couple of decades, max, to fend off the worst-case consequences.

Wait a second...You don't really think this whole controversy came about because people became alarmed at the consequences of our behavior to people living thousands of years from now, do you?

The futility of this debate just leaped up to Level Orange.

Seriously, Dark, even us tree-huggers value our own conveniences above the interests of the Eloi, for christsake! For all any of us know, the human race thousands of years from now might be all floaty and wan-looking like those thin uber-blondes who donned togas and early Beatles haircuts and did nothing but pluck apricots and lie around, waiting to be eaten by their herdsmen. If they expect me to take the bus and adjust the air conditioning to save them from extinction, they can bite me.

Seriously. What if you're not partially wrong, but wrong-wrong, as in the other side is right? What is it you're being asked to do that is so onerous, compared to the consequences to your grandchildren's generation if you are wrong?

Pay for it with my hard earned taxes.

 

[shereads]

Exactly.

To dredge up another debate, how about the Ozone layer and man kind's destruction of it? Really? A satelite picture from 1970-whatever and OMFG...it's the end of the world as we know it. Chloro-Floural Carbons! Hairspray! Too fucking many cattle! We heard it all. Simple 9th grade science tells us this: The most harmful thing to Ozone, is Ozone.

If you want me to explain the science behind that, it's pretty simple, but you should really just take my word for it. If there were gasses in the ozone layer that were destroying it and making this hole thing larger, the whole layer would have been destroyed a long, long time ago.

Science stands corrected. Thank you, Heritage Foundation for providing our friend here with oogles of factoids. For shame, Kyoto Accord and thousands of scientists around the world who have little to gain and a lot to lose, but are nevertheless willing to pull this cruel, baseless hoax on real scientists, like Dark.