1978 Climate Change Fears then were about....ICE AGE!!!! LOL!!!!!
- Thread starter nayr69sg
- Start date
Stop down grade yr dignity u dumbtwit.
This is a bashing site for strong man, never bow to criticism.... sissy boy...
This is a bashing site for strong man, never bow to criticism.... sissy boy...
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 61,864
- Points
- 113
another heat dome to hover over bc and alberta this weekend. bay area is spared, thanks to cumming ice age.
43 years seems like a very very short time compared to the history of the planet Earth.
Really in 43 years the burning of fossil fuels caused so much heat to be generated that cannot be lost to space (insulation so good?) and cause the planet to overheat?
My personal non scientific belief is that it is unlikely mankind has such powerful influence on the Earth to this extent. But time will tell.
One thing I will say though......
If the world truly went "green" ie battery cars. Wind Power. Solar Power.
And if we were wrong about global warming and indeed the 1970s scientists were right about ice age coming.....then we will be in deep shit. Cos batteries dont work well in cold.
And if we had shut down all those oil fields and sources of fuels to burn......JIA LAT!!!!
If the world truly went "green" ie battery cars. Wind Power. Solar Power.
And if we were wrong about global warming and indeed the 1970s scientists were right about ice age coming.....then we will be in deep shit. Cos batteries dont work well in cold.
And if we had shut down all those oil fields and sources of fuels to burn......JIA LAT!!!!
Go to 6:09 Dr Giff Miller said in 1978.......I am often asked when will this present warm interval end? And the best answer to that probably is that IT HAS ALREADY ENDED
Now the same guy now calling himself Dr Gifford Miller.......
Wah lau this is like saying Dr Miller telling you that you got cancer already no hope liao. Then later say wah lau you gonna live forever now!
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 61,864
- Points
- 113
without the earth’s magnetic shield, all life on earth would have perished long ago. changing of the earth’s (magnetic) polarity and weakening of the magnetic shield during the transition will be earth’s most vulnerable moment.
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/10/the_great_global_cooling_myth.html
07 Oct 2008 | 14:45 BST | Posted by Alicia Newton | Category: Alicia Newton, Climate prediction, Climate Science, Communicating Climate Change, GHG emissions
“In the 1970s, all the scientists were saying an ice age was coming.” This seems to be a popular sentiment echoed in blogs and novels aimed at challenging the consensus views regarding future climate change. It was even a key theme in Michael Crichton’s State of Fear , when a character suggests that scientists only jumped on the global warming bandwagon in a bid to secure funding.
But a new article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society challenges the idea of a ‘global cooling ’ consensus. Thomas Peterson of NOAA teamed with William Connolley of the British Antarctic survey and science reporter John Fleck to create a survey of peer-reviewed climate literature from the 1970s. Looking at every paper that dealt with climate change projections or an aspect of climate forcing from 1965 to 1979, they were able to assess the ‘trends’ in the literature. They found that only 7 of the 71 total papers surveyed predicted global cooling. The vast majority (44) actually predicted that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming.
The group went even farther, and pulled up some of the most referenced news articles on climate. What they found may be the earliest example of climate whiplash journalism . In 1975, the New York Times published two articles by W Sullivan with the contradictory (partial) titles “major cooling may be ahead” and “warming trend seen in climate.”
Of course, there was a small group of scientists in a new field pointing to the inevitability of the coming ice age – the newly minted palaeoclimatologists. However, as Peterson and colleagues point out, they were speaking on timescales of tens of thousands of years, rather than anything that could occur in a child or grandchild’s lifetime. And in their seminal 1976 paper on the pacemaker of the ice ages, James Hays and colleagues warned that anthropogenic emissions may affect these long term future climate trends more strongly that solar forcing.
Overall, Peterson, Connolley and Fleck have shown that the scientific consensus has actually changed very little since the 1970s. More surprisingly (at least to the sceptics) they show that global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has always been a concern, even during the infancy of modern climate science. Anyone care to pass the final nail for the coffin of ‘global cooling’?
07 Oct 2008 | 14:45 BST | Posted by Alicia Newton | Category: Alicia Newton, Climate prediction, Climate Science, Communicating Climate Change, GHG emissions
But a new article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society challenges the idea of a ‘global cooling ’ consensus. Thomas Peterson of NOAA teamed with William Connolley of the British Antarctic survey and science reporter John Fleck to create a survey of peer-reviewed climate literature from the 1970s. Looking at every paper that dealt with climate change projections or an aspect of climate forcing from 1965 to 1979, they were able to assess the ‘trends’ in the literature. They found that only 7 of the 71 total papers surveyed predicted global cooling. The vast majority (44) actually predicted that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming.
The group went even farther, and pulled up some of the most referenced news articles on climate. What they found may be the earliest example of climate whiplash journalism . In 1975, the New York Times published two articles by W Sullivan with the contradictory (partial) titles “major cooling may be ahead” and “warming trend seen in climate.”
Of course, there was a small group of scientists in a new field pointing to the inevitability of the coming ice age – the newly minted palaeoclimatologists. However, as Peterson and colleagues point out, they were speaking on timescales of tens of thousands of years, rather than anything that could occur in a child or grandchild’s lifetime. And in their seminal 1976 paper on the pacemaker of the ice ages, James Hays and colleagues warned that anthropogenic emissions may affect these long term future climate trends more strongly that solar forcing.
Overall, Peterson, Connolley and Fleck have shown that the scientific consensus has actually changed very little since the 1970s. More surprisingly (at least to the sceptics) they show that global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has always been a concern, even during the infancy of modern climate science. Anyone care to pass the final nail for the coffin of ‘global cooling’?
I watched the whole video.
At the end they asked what can we do to prevent the next Ice Age? Some suggestions were to cover the ice with black soot to make it melt faster. Yup that's what''s happened! Lots of soot from forest fires.
I think we succeeded! LOL!!!!
Sigh. So dumb.
At the end they asked what can we do to prevent the next Ice Age? Some suggestions were to cover the ice with black soot to make it melt faster. Yup that's what''s happened! Lots of soot from forest fires.
I think we succeeded! LOL!!!!
Sigh. So dumb.
Similar threads
