June 24, 1974. TIME Magazine

[Applesaround]

ok...I don't want to post something posted every week; I already got pilloried for that.

My job kind of relates to these sort of things, so I find them interesting. Maybe you might to. So here's a link.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

 

[JohnnySavage]

This was just posted 35 years ago!

 

[Applesaround]

This was just posted 35 years ago!

lol..what can I say...I prefer vintage porn too.

 

[Lady Reiha]

And this relates to mine.

 

[TurdFergeson]

ok...I don't want to post something posted every week; I already got pilloried for that.

My job kind of relates to these sort of things, so I find them interesting. Maybe you might to. So here's a link.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Yes, they were right. There was a cooling trend, however it was on a small time scale. The amount of aerosols (dust) in the atmosphere was higher back then, which caused a cooling effect due to increased albedo.

"The cooling period is well reproduced by current (1999 on) global climate models (GCMs) that include the physical effects of sulphate aerosols, and there is now general agreement that aerosol effects were the dominant cause of the mid-20th century cooling. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

 

[fgarvb1]

But you see, there was no money in preaching Global cooling and ice ages!

Global Warming is out now and Radical Climate Change is in.

 

[Applesaround]

Yes, they were right. There was a cooling trend, however it was on a small time scale. The amount of aerosols (dust) in the atmosphere was higher back then, which caused a cooling effect due to increased albedo.

"The cooling period is well reproduced by current (1999 on) global climate models (GCMs) that include the physical effects of sulphate aerosols, and there is now general agreement that aerosol effects were the dominant cause of the mid-20th century cooling. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Maybe, but I don't beleive aerosols affected the environment myself--I hate that term "general agreement" in science. Science is data--not general agreement. THat's just a hypothesis.

The Little Ice Age wasn't caused by aerosols for example.

But, Turd, if i can call you that...personally i think the interesting points of the article mention catastrophic weather as a symptom of global cooling. Ironically, the very same symptoms are cited for global warming. I guess that's the nugget I got from it.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Maybe, but I don't beleive aerosols affected the environment myself--I hate that term "general agreement" in science. Science is data--not general agreement. THat's just a hypothesis.

The Little Ice Age wasn't caused by aerosols for example.

But, Turd, if i can call you that...personally i think the interesting points of the article mention catastrophic weather as a symptom of global cooling. Ironically, the very same symptoms are cited for global warming. I guess that's the nugget I got from it.

You don't believe? Why?

Volcanoes erupting are known to cause short-term cooling effects.

If the cooling back then would ae continued, it would have caused a ice age. But, the aerosols lessened.

As for catastrophic weather, I would imagine any big variations in climate would cause a loss of equilibreum and increased atmospheric turbulence. Hotter or colder doesn't mattter, both would cause increased turbulence.

 

[Applesaround]

You don't believe? Why?

Volcanoes erupting are known to cause short-term cooling effects.

As for catastrophic weather, I wouldimagine any big variations in climate would cause a loss of equilibreum and increased atmosphric turbulence. Hotter or colder doesn't mattter, both would cause increased turbulence.

Well, the amount of output (SO2) from volcanoes far exceeds aerosols that have been put out by humans. Especially since volcanoes are around for many hundreds of millions of years. And most of them are submarine. I think that's not a fair comparison.

My point of posting the article is point out the alarmist nature of it. I don't want to get into a discussion about anthropogenic global warming per se. But TIME magazine has a big readership, and most people would read that at the time and think, "Oh my...an ice age is coming!"

What is "equilibrium?" Is it the climate at which humans can best inhabit the planet? THat's awfully egocentric. For all we know, the earth hasn't been in equilibrium since the last ice age.

 

[fgarvb1]

To much stuff. just go here...

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Global_Warming_003.html





http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Global_Warming_003.html

 

[Applesaround]

To much stuff. just go here...

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Global_Warming_003.html





http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Global_Warming_003.html

Thank you for that.

 

[trysail]

... The amount of aerosols (dust) in the atmosphere was higher back then, which caused a cooling effect due to increased albedo. ...

The above "sentence" conclusively demonstrates one thing: either you can't write a coherent English sentence or you have no idea what you're talking about.

Those are the only two possibilities; unfortunately, they're not mutually exclusive.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Well, the amount of output (SO2) from volcanoes far exceeds aerosols that have been put out by humans. Especially since volcanoes are around for many hundreds of millions of years. And most of them are submarine. I think that's not a fair comparison.

My point of posting the article is point out the alarmist nature of it. I don't want to get into a discussion about anthropogenic global warming per se. But TIME magazine has a big readership, and most people would read that at the time and think, "Oh my...an ice age is coming!"

What is "equilibrium?" Is it the climate at which humans can best inhabit the planet? THat's awfully egocentric. For all we know, the earth hasn't been in equilibrium since the last ice age.

Whoa...that is a common myth about volcanoes. Humans emit orders of magnitude more Co2 than every volcanic eruption combined. Think about it. How often is there a major eruption? Compare to humans who emit tons every day, 24/7/365. Millions of cars, busses, trains, ships, planes, factories, power plants, etc.

In fact, humans emit 150 times more Carbon Dioxide.

Cite:

http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans

I didn't see it as alarmist so much as stating the facts that were known at the time, which (as a side point) were true.

"Equilibreum" is the cuurent climate state. Any major change (cooler or hotter) will upset this balace and cause turbulence (bad weather).

I don't know about you, but as a human I kind of like Earth climate being condusive to human life. Call it what you want, but humans have been given the mind power to understand and somewhat control our Earth ship. Our understanding and control will only get better with time.

 

[trysail]

Renowned agricultural scientist Dr. Norman Borlaug has died at the age of 95. Borlaug, known as the father of the “Green Revolution” for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal.

During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high-yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations. These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution, and Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people from starvation. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply.

Borlaug also declared himself skeptical of man-made climate fears in 2007. “I do believe we are in a period where, no question, the temperatures are going up. But is this a part of another one of those (natural) cycles that have brought on glaciers and caused melting of glaciers?” Borlaug asked, according to a September 21, 2007 article in Saint Paul Pioneer Press. The article reported that Borlaug is “not sure, and he doesn’t think the science is, either.” Borlaug added, “How much would we have to cut back to take the increasing carbon dioxide and methane production to a level so that it’s not a driving force?” We don’t even know how much.”

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

Ha! I laughed when I read that link. And not because it was funny.

I remember in 7th or 8th grade I did a report on the next Ice Age. No internet then, so I spent 2 weeks pulling magazine articles and books on the subject from several libraries. The point I was trying to make in the report was that meteorological fluctuations were part of a global climatic upheaval.

Mind you this report was for an English teacher. She specificly stated the subject matter itself was not important, but proper english mechanics and grammar were being studied. Also, to write down the words we had look up in a dictionary on a separate paper.

She totally disagreed with whatever spin I put on the report and gave me an 'F' because she disagreed with the topic. My main argument being she had taken my report too personal and her grade had nothing what-so-ever to do with goal of the assignment itself.

I eventually ended up with an 'A' because I wrote the report well within the guidelines she herself had established.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Facts:

Sea levels are rising.

Ocean salinity levels are declining.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising.

Global temperature is rising.

Worldwide the vast majority of glaciers are retreating.

Deforestation and desertification is increasing worldwide.

The Solar Constant has not risen significantly.

And likewise, the amount of solar radiation effecting Earth per sq. foot has remained constant, meaning orbital or axial variations are not to blame.

Earth Albedo is slightly up, actually. But not eough to counteract the other factors.

 

[Applesaround]

Whoa...that is a common myth about volcanoes. Humans emit orders of magnitude more Co2 than every volcanic eruption combined. Think about it. How often is there a major eruption? Compare to humans who emit tons every day, 24/7/365. Millions of cars, busses, trains, ships, planes, factroies, power plants, etc.

In fact, humans emit 150 times more Carbon Dioxide.

Cite:

http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans

I didn't see it as alarmist so much as stating the facts that were known at the time, which (as a side point) were true.


"Equilibreum" is the cuurent climate state. Any major change (cooler or hotter) will upset this balace and cause turbulence (bad weather).

I don't know about you, but as a human I kind of like Earth climate being condusive to human life. Call it what you want, but humans have been given the mind power to understand and somewhat control our Earth ship. Our understanding and control will only get better with time.

Of course I like the earth conducive to human life. Ironically, it's the much maligned greenhouse effect that allows that. "Equilibrium," by your definition, means that the earth is always in equilibrium, as at any given measurement represents the concurrent time of measurement. I'm fine with that definition.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosmphere is about 0.001% to that held in the oceans. I mention that because you mention "equilibrium." Equilibrium is measured by correlation coefficients, which in terms of the carbon cycle, shows that carbon preferentially dissolves in the oceans rather than stays in the atmosphere. Hence the large discrepancy. Moreover, the amount of carbon on the planet is more or less fixed: i.e. it's a closed system. Those too are facts.

My point about catastrophic events is the assumption of cause and effect. My weather person can't accurately predict next weeks weather, but they know the exact cause of hurricanes coming off the southern cape of Africa. Sorry I don't buy that.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Of course I like the earth conducive to human life. Ironically, it's the much maligned greenhouse effect that allows that. "Equilibrium," by your definition, means that the earth is always in equilibrium, as at any given measurement represents the concurrent time of measurement. I'm fine with that definition.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosmphere is about 0.001% to that held in the oceans. I mention that because you mention "equilibrium." Equilibrium is measured by correlation coefficients, which in terms of the carbon cycle, shows that carbon preferentially dissolves in the oceans rather than stays in the atmosphere. Hence the large discrepancy. Moreover, the amount of carbon on the planet is more or less fixed: i.e. it's a closed system. Those too are facts.

My point about catastrophic events is the assumption of cause and effect. My weather person can't accurately predict next weeks weather, but they know the exact cause of hurricanes coming off the southern cape of Africa. Sorry I don't buy that. And it's not because I don't know anything about it. I work with these types of data.

Oceans are a carbon sink, indeed. And the problem is also Ocean Warming which decreases CO2 solubility.

http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm

Anthropogenic ocean warming is dangerous:


http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/24/oceans-earth-pole.html

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

................My weather person can't accurately predict next weeks weather, but they know the exact cause........

That happens here sometimes. A few times I have been driving along during a sudden downpour of rain. At that moment a local radio station says "No rain in sight for the next several days....."

 

[trysail]

Facts:

Sea levels are rising.
NOT TRUE.
Ocean salinity levels are declining.
NOT TRUE.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising.
IT DEPENDS WHEN YOU START MEASURING.
Global temperature is rising.
IT DEPENDS WHEN YOU START MEASURING.
Worldwide the vast majority of glaciers are retreating.
NOT TRUE.
Deforestation and desertification is increasing worldwide.
AND...??
The Solar Constant has not risen significantly.
DEFINE "SOLAR CONSTANT."
And likewise, the amount of solar radiation effecting Earth per sq. foot has remained constant, meaning orbital or axial variations are not to blame.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Earth Albedo is slightly up, actually. But not eough to counteract the other factors.
HOW ARE YOU MEASURING ALBEDO?

I have grave doubts that you understand half the words you have obviously copied and pasted.

 

[atmas]

Facts:

Sea levels are rising. Proof?

Ocean salinity levels are declining.Which would support the assertion that non-oceanic glacier melt is contributing to this, but you didn't mention this

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising.So? You breathe out CO2. It is largely a benign byproduct of respiration. CO, which you scrupulously avoid mentioning, is not so benign

Global temperature is rising.By a fraction of a degree per decade for as long as records have been held. Umm, so?

Worldwide the vast majority of glaciers are retreating.And advancing. If you are not aware that significant glaciation has increased in certain areas of the world, you are ignorantly alarmist

Deforestation and desertification is increasing worldwide.Deforestation is a sociopolitical problem. Stop the logging, i.e.

The Solar Constant has not risen significantly.Solar constant? Dude, I majored for a while in astrophysics. I don't know what the solar constant is. I smell cut and paste.

And likewise, the amount of solar radiation effecting Earth per sq. foot has remained constant, meaning orbital or axial variations are not to blame. Axial variations? Splain...if you are capable

Earth Albedo is slightly up, actually. But not eough to counteract the other factors. Albedo? More c and P, I suspect

above

 

[Applesaround]

Oceans are a carbon sink, indeed. And the problem is also Ocean Warming which decreases CO2 solubility.

A decrease in solubility would be manifested by precipitation of CaCO3, i.e. limestone, represented typically on our continental shelves. This precipitation would essentially remove the dissolved carbon from the system in order to acheive equilibrium.

Add salt to a glass of water, after a while the salt will precipitate, but the dissolved NaCl will remain constant.

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

Facts:

Sea levels are rising.

Ocean salinity levels are declining.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising.

Global temperature is rising.

Worldwide the vast majority of glaciers are retreating.

Deforestation and desertification is increasing worldwide.

The Solar Constant has not risen significantly.

And likewise, the amount of solar radiation effecting Earth per sq. foot has remained constant, meaning orbital or axial variations are not to blame.

Earth Albedo is slightly up, actually. But not eough to counteract the other factors.

I have grave doubts that you understand half the words you have obviously cut and pasted.

above

Wow! They could have a valid point Turd. In that post I misread 'Earth Albedo' as 'Earth Libido. My mind tends to do that when I am horny.

 

[TurdFergeson]

above

Proof that ocean levels are rising? Look it up yourself.

The MAJORITY of glaciers are melting and receding.

Atmospheric CO2 is not benign. Once it gets to high enough levels, that is.

Umm, so? That would be global warming.

You are just arguing to argue, since I said THE VAST MAJORITY are receding.

Wow...5 are growing, and 100 are receding. You are being ignorantly argumentative.

Deforestation is more than socioppolitical, and you know it. Terraforming has definite climate effects.

I smell ignorance. Look up the term if you don't know what the solar constant is. It is the amount of radiation emitted by the sun. The sun is not getting hotter.

The wobble, or precession of the Earth's axis.

Albedo beng the overall reflectivity of the Earth.

Why would I cut and paste this elementary information? I'm suspecting your so-called "expert" credentials.

 

[fgarvb1]

Applesaround,

I may not be able to speak to you on the level of intelligence that you cruise on, but still, I like to watch a good argument.

And occasionally stick my foot in my mouth.

Welcome to Literotica.