An "arguement" that global warming contrarians often make is that in the 1970s, scientists were predicting that we were headed into an ice age, so why should anyone pay attention to climate science now?
Here is the short history of that "ice age" claim, and why it not only doesn't contradict global warming warnings today, it actually makes the warming warnings more urgent.
The climate controversy of the 1970s (not that many scientists were even studying the issue then) was whether CO2 emissions or pollution (particulate matter, CFCs from aerosols, etc.) would predominate. CO2 emissions building in the atmosphere increase climate warming, while pollution's effects on clouds reflects the sun's rays, producing a cooling effect. The scientists, who thought that we were headed into an ice age, thought that the pollution effect would be stronger than the CO2 concentration effect. They were "wrong" only in that they bet on the wrong human influence. CO2 emissions have predominated.
However, the scientists predicting an ice age, weren't completely wrong, as research following 9/11 showed. You will recall that after 9/11, all aircraft were grounded for several days. Scientists discovered that jet contrails themselves contributed significantly to "dimming" of solar radiation. This doesn't mean we're headed into an ice age. But what it does mean is that the pollution scientists thought would contribute to an ice age - that dimming is masking the real effects of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. That is, if not for the reflective properties of pollution, global warming would be further along.
This is the real story behind the contrarian "arguement" about scientists predicting the "ice age" in the 1970s. As usual, the contrarian "arguement" is shallow and without a hint of credibility.
For more on global dimming:
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 23
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977078785
You must have your link wrong. The article you linked has nothing to do with this topic. I like the last sentence of your article, though:
"Follow the links and take a look at some of their other information about what is percieved to be a crisis, it may open your eyes to what really is going on, which in my view is a political operation meant to rob us of our freedom and capitalist ways."
BTW, did you ever read "Natural Capitalism", the book I recommended you read some time ago?
To tell you the truth, I have three little kids a job, two dogs, a wife and two businesses that I am involved with, I can't even read the newspaper, God knows how I find time to bop around the internet.
As far as capitalism goes, check out, if I haven't pointed you in that direction before ecassetrecovery.com
my brother and I take eWaste and process it for recycling
I went YIKES!
It shows.
Keith: "my brother and I take eWaste and process it for recycling"
Good for you! Then you should know that environmentalism and capitalism are not opposites. Is this your website? If it is, congratulations. You should know that "Natural Capitalism" is full of such examples of people making money through environmentally responsible businesses.
Peter - yes, PBS Nova, did a program on this a couple of weeks ago. I agree - YIKES!
David: Thanks for dropping by. Glad this information is useful to you.
Your article is about solar radiation as the "cause" of global warming. That is known as "solar forcing" and has been ruled out as a major cause of global warming - but I've given you references on that before. This is something different, if you take time to actually read my article. It is not about solar forcing. And it is not I, who disagree with your article - it is the IPCC. And every major scientific association throughout the world supports IPCC's conclusions. I've given you those references too.
I teach an undergrad environmental law course and it drives me crazy when my students cannot articulate why they belive something to be true.
Thanks - especially thanks for teaching your course!
I think if I were young again trying to decide a career, I would either go into environmental science or I would learn to install solar-electric systems. As it is, I worked in mental health, and I'm now retired.
Do you notice that global warming is being ignored these days? It is about 25 notches below Britney Spears lip synching disaster in terms of public visibility, even with the news about arctic melting and polar bear future extinction. It's frankly absurd the things to which we pay attention these days.
Yes, the liberal media has reverted to the "fluff" stories. Two notable exceptions:
Newsweek did a decent story on the CCDS, and the hate mail the reporter received was the typical stuff (liberal, socialist, capitalism hater).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/
Forcast Earth on the Weather Channel does a decent job of presenting the issue. The climate scientist presenting the program also hears alot from the CCDS, as you can see from her blog.
http://climate.weather.com/?cm_ven=one_deg_home&cm_ite=one_deg_header&from=one_deg_header
The CCDS has lost the arguement, though, and the debate has moved on to "what to do about it." In that arena, the nuclear energy proponents throw up as much absurdity as the CCDS ever did. Even some environmentalists have joined with nuke proponents, if you can belive that. I hope you'll join me in exposing the myths about nuclear energy, while pushing renewables. Thanks for your comments here.
Hydrogen seems to me to be the optimal solution for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it (according to Amory Lovins) can be pursued by business for profit.
Thanks for joining "The Hydrogen Solution." If you don't also belong to "The Hydrogen Economy," I would recommend that group also. Thanks also for your comments here.
here is my spin on the single best approach to solving the problem: first drop the pretense that anything important can be done without spending a dime on it.
In the bigger sense there may not be a single magical solution to global warming. It requires international negotiation, a reliance on multiple sources of alternative and nuclear and yes hydrogen to replace coal and petroleum. I have read Joe Romm's views that hydrogen can become useful in electricity plants before it will be ready to play a role in transportation, and that we cannot wait that long to reduce fossil fuel dependence. We need to improve the mileage efficiency of new vehicles immediately.
No nukes are necessary. In fact, they're a costly distraction:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977118748
Chris: "...hydrogen can become useful in electricity plants before it will be ready to play a role in transportation, and that we cannot wait that long to reduce fossil fuel dependence. We need to improve the mileage efficiency of new vehicles immediately."
I highly recommend Amory Lovins', "Winning the Oil Endgame," in which he says that fuel cells, used distributively in buildings, will push mass production and lower prices, so that fuel cells can be introduced to transportation. In the meantime, he suggests doubling fuel efficiency by making cars from presently available ultra-light, super-strong carbon composite materials (airplanes are already being made from this stuff) - and doubling fuel efficiency again through "feebates" for hybrid vehicles. Here is a summary of his strategy:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977119220
And here is the detailed description:
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T99-07_StrategyH2Trans.pdf
Yes and no, I think. A key advantage of hydrogen is that it works in conjunction with other renewables. It is not an energy source, but an energy carrier, and it can be made from any energy souce, including wind, solar, geothermal, biomass - even hydrocarbons (without burning them). And as central as hydrogen can be as the energy foundation of our economy, Lovins also asserts that end-use efficiency is just as important as the form of energy used. He notes there are two "Saudi Arabias" in the U.S. One in the Dakotas, which potentially can produce enough wind energy to make enough hydrogen to fuel all of our transportation, and another in Detroit, which could more than half the weight of transportation vehicles (with ultralight, super-strong carbon composite materials) and displace more than half the fuel needed to drive them.
So a multifaceted approach is warranted, but hydrogen and end-use efficiency should be the "hub" that brings all the "spokes" together.
This makes the global warming scenario all the more ominous. Without air pollution, the global mean temperature would be higher by now.
The cheapest way to fix global warming is to increase pollution in the cities to the point where sun can no longer hit the ground and it would cool the weather(permanent shade)
It has been the case for awhile in Mexico City where it is located in the subtropic and barely reaches 80 in the hottest part of the year.
I don't agree with global warming, but I knew this would work as many people have stated its pollution thats keeping us cooler, but its also heating it up!
Yes, my remarks sound stupid and they are true! That is my point fervent religious environmentalist are VERY smart and they lack all common sense.
!!!!!!The cause of global warming is also the answer, the answer is also the problem!!!!!!!
Thats what your trying to tell me in redneck mans terms.