Global warming prediction from 1979

[Howzit]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aJpjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=N3wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6824,139587&dq=global+warming&hl=en

Where are Drs Leona Libby and Louis Pandolfi now?

What about these "experts"? ftp://climate1.gsfc.nasa.gov/wiscombe/History/ARPAClimDyn1973meet.pdf

[notesdev]

1. That's amazing

Mens' dress shirts for only $4? Wow!

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. What's you point with the 2nd link?

It's just a list of people who attended a conference in 1973. You don't even bother pointing out what the conference discussed.

[Howzit]

3. The question is if the expert from 4 decades ago agree with today's experts and if any of the names

listed are on the list of today's experts?

[Barrett808]

7. So, global warming is an ARPA conspiracy?

:shrug:

[stuntcat]

4. I have articles from the 80's

short AP pieces my grandmother clipped from our local paper, almost 30 years ago, saying exactly what the scientists are still trying to tell people now.

Years after she died I've gone through her old papers, piles and piles of stuff she saved, some environmental articles from so long ago.
And people are still hating on people like her, and saying most of the world's SCIENTISTS are wrong :eyes: :mad:

[Howzit]

9. See post #6

[meow mix]

5. good predictin

k&r

[The Traveler]

6. I'm not sure what the point of this is

Climate modelling, like any other scientific discipline, has advanced considerably as the scientific method grinds away at the set of hypotheses. Tools and techniques have seen much improvement. The set of available data has grown magnificently.

Consider just one aspect of the above. My home office contains MUCH more processing power than was available on the entire Georgia Tech campus in 1980, and my home office is not all that exceptional.

An implication of that is that computations are now easily achieved which were impractical in that era.

Of course, predictions have changed ... and have gotten better at achieving consistency with the data. What do you expect? If that were not the case, then clearly we would not be making any scientific progress.

At the heart of the climate change controversy is the premise that human activity can have a measurable effect on the behaviour of large systems, like the oceans and atmosphere. That premise lead different scientists to different hypotheses ... which is not that surprising to anyone who is familiar with the history of science.

The more significant point is that the premise is just too much for some to conceptually swallow. Others fear its political and economic implications, and so try to hide it behind a curtain of disinformation. Mother nature doesn't care. The premise is now irrefutable. It was a reasonable premise by the 80s. By the 90s, no sane AND honest informed person would have tried to refute it. And now we are looking at a 4-6 degree rise in average temperature and find ourselves in the middle of the largest, fastest extinction event in 260 million years. This event has a name. We call it the second spike of the Holocene.

I have been told it is hubris to assume man can effect the atmosphere. Bull. That's just running the numbers.

I claim it is hubris to blithely assume economic, technological man will survive the Holocene. The human species may survive, or may not. But I think what we recognise as western, high energy technology civilization is at great risk.

And since I am actually a big fan of western, high energy technology civilization, I'm pretty pissed off about it.

[NickB79]

8. No mention of taking rising CO2 levels into consideration

In their climate modeling. It basically seems to be a prediction of what the climate would have been, if you ignored man's impact on it.

Looks like that was a big mistake.

[Howzit]

10. So is there or is there not warming without CO2?

The article talks about several degrees worth of warming.

[kristopher]

11. Since you agree with fossil fuel industry claims about the effects of CO2 emissions

I'd like to ask if you also agree with the tobacco industry claims that cigarettes are good for your health?

[Howzit]

12. Since you believe the scientist in the newspaper article quoted in the OP

work for the fossil fuel industry, I'd like to ask if you still agree that buying that AK based on the fear that Obama would renew the assault weapons ban was the right thing to do?

[kristopher]

13. You didn't answer the question.

I made no comment regarding the scientists in the OP, I asked about your belief in the claims promoted by industry sponsored science extends to those of the tobacco industry. Do they?

As for my motive for buying an AK, that too is not relevant and indicates a bit of desperation on your part. However, since you brought it up, my purchase had nothing to do with concern over gun control legislation. From day one, Obama has made clear that he is not interested in pursuing that struggle.
What did motivate my purchase was the desire to introduce my wife and daughters to the US world of shooting. We had recently returned from Japan and none of them had any experience with firearms, so I purchased a set of target pistols (.22 Rugers) and a .22 rifle. They enjoyed the activity and I wanted to add a dimension of power to their experience so that they could appreciate to a slight extent that what combat troops faced; and I decided to buy an old AK because it, and the ammo was inexpensive. To my knowledge the existence or demise of the so called "assault weapons ban" had no impact at all on the availability of the rifle I purchased nor the alternative .243 that I had considered.

Now, what about the tobacco industry?

[Howzit]

14. The tobacco industry serves no useful purpose other than to generate tax revenue

Neither the tobacco industry nor the fossil fuel industry have any relevance in term of the scientists quoted in the OP.

My bringing up gun control to the conversation was to indicate how irrelevant tobacco is to climate science, but since you believe Obama has no intention of pursuing that struggle, read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html

"Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say."


This article http://obama.3cdn.net/84b2062fc4a5114715_ftxamv9ot.pdf indicates what Obama was thinking before his election - why would that have changed? The article shows a deliberate attempt to create confusion between fully automatic weapons and those covered by the "assault weapons ban":

"As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban. These weapons, such as AK-47s, belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. These are also not weapons that are used by hunters and sportsmen."


If dredging up old facts is not PC then I apologize. What I was looking for with the OP was a logical comparison between climate science from 1979 and now based on unfiltered facts. Instead you offer speculation that I believe what the fossil fuel industry sells and something irrelevant about tobacco. Facts and logic; nothing else will stand. If you don't have them or can't be bothered, then don't bother. Trying to make me look bad is like wrestling with pigs.

EDIT: Other than trying to distract with all the irrelevant detail about your .22s, why did you buy that assault weapon? You can consider this a rhetorical question.

[kristopher]

16. There is a direct connection between tobacco and climate

The efforts of the tobacco industry to confuse the public with false conclusions out of industry sponsored "institutes" established the template for anti-science misinformation that other industries, including fossil fuels, has since followed.

There is no difference between the validity of the "science" saying tobacco is safe and the validity of the "science" calling into question anthropogenic global warming. Both start with a predetermined conclusion and use false logic to construct plausible sounding arguments meant to mislead the non-specialist. They both are little more than a form of "preaching to the choir" since their primary purpose isn't to convince those who know the science, but instead to give those who do not understand the science a lifeline to grab onto in order to reduce cognitive dissonance. Without this steady stream of false, economically motivated misinformation you and others like you would be forced to deal with the real facts as established by the real community of science that culture has established.

IOW, you are being played for a fool. I can't imagine that is a role you want or see for yourself, but nonetheless that is what is happening. These two articles are well done and together give a good picture of the values that are in play.

Rearguard of Modernity

in the journal Global Environmental Politics

Environmental skepticism denies the reality and importance of mainstream global environmental problems. However, its most important challenges are in its civic claims which receive much less attention. These civic claims defend the basis of ethical authority of the dominant social paradigm. The article explains how political values determine what skeptics count as a problem. One such value described is “deep anthropocentrism,” or the attempt to split human society from non-human nature and reject ecology as a legitimate field of ethical concern. This bias frames what skeptics consider legitimate knowledge. The paper then argues that the contemporary conservative countermovement has marshaled environmental skepticism to function as a rearguard for a maladaptive set of core values that resist public efforts to address global environmental sustainability. As such, the paper normatively argues that environmental skepticism is a significant threat to efforts to achieve sustainability faced by human societies in a globalizing world.

Download here: http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques/Papers/71775/Rearguard-of-Modernity



Study to test theory:
The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism

Co-authored with Riley E. Dunlap and Mark Freeman published in the journal Environmental Politics, June 2008

Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed 'sceptics' claim to be unbiased analysts combating 'junk science'. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.
download here: http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques/Papers

[txlibdem]

15. They only looked at tree rings and only went back 1800 years - did not factor CO2

Other studies have been done show a clear (larger) temperature spike that coincides with each time atmospheric CO2 rises above 250 ppm.

This chart goes back 400,000 years: (note that today is on the left and past millenia to the right).
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

PS, the folks over at http://www.350.org/ say we're at 391 ppm CO2 today (and rising). Enjoy.