I don't recall Global Cooling. I remember talk in the late 70's of the issues aerosol propellants and the ozone layer.
Another history lesson ultra. You really do leave a great deal to be desired as an "investigator".:idea:
Global cooling refers to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.
Aerosols
Human activity mostly as a by-product of fossil fuel combustion, partly by land-use changes increases the number of tiny particles (aerosols) in the atmosphere. These have a direct effect: they effectively increase the planetary albedo, thus cooling the planet by reducing the sunshine reaching the surface; and an indirect effect: they can affect the properties of clouds by acting as cloud condensation nuclei. In the early 1970s some speculated that this cooling effect might dominate over the warming effect of the CO2 release: see discussion of Rasool and Schneider (1971).
The "Aerosols" you mentioned had nothing to do with "Aerosol" sprays (like paint, hairspray, etc.).
Orbital forcing
The other mechanism was orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles): slow changes in the tilt of the planet's axis and shape of the orbit change the total amount of sunlight reaching the earth by a small amount and the seasonality of the sunshine by rather more. This mechanism is believed to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles, and understanding of it happened to be increasing rapidly in the mid-1970s.
The idea that ice ages cycles were predictable appears to have become conflated with the idea that another one was due "soon" - perhaps because much of this study was done by geologists, who use "soon" to refer to periods of centuries to tens of millennia or more. A strict application of the Milankovitch theory does not allow the prediction of a "rapid" ice age onset (rapid being anything under a century or two) since the fastest orbital period is about 20,000 years. Some creative ways around this were found, notably Nigel Calder's "snowblitz" theory,
At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966 Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years." In his 1968 book "The Population Bomb", Paul Ehrlich wrote "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."
In 1972 Emiliani warned "Man's activity may either precipitate this new ice age or lead to substantial or even total melting of the ice caps".
By 1972 a group of glacial-epoch experts at a conference agreed that "the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near".
There was a paper by S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider, published in the journal Science in July 1971. Titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate," the paper examined the possible future effects of two types of human environmental emissions:
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide;
particulate pollution such as smog, some of which remains suspended in the atmosphere in aerosol form for years.
Greenhouse gases were regarded as likely factors that could promote global warming, while particulate pollution blocks sunlight and contributes to cooling.
In their paper, Rasool and Schneider theorized that aerosols were more likely to contribute to climate change in the foreseeable future than greenhouse gases, stating that quadrupling aerosols "could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 C. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!"
1975 Newsweek article
While these discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, more dramatic accounts appeared in the popular media, notably an April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine. Titled "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."
Now, that last quote looks EXACLY (but in mirror image) like the current "Catastrophic Climate Change" crap being blamed on man.
30 years ago we were causing the next ice age.
Now, we are going to burn the world up in 45 years.
Another great set of quotes from the newsweek article. Do they look "Familiar" to anyone but me? :idea:
"But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...
The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate,"
This one is GREAT!!!!
"the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age
The entire Newsweek article text (http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm)
"Investigate" SOMETHING ultra. Good lord.
Next, Ultra's status as "unconvinced" about MMGW.
don't give libs facts...they only become confused as to whom should be blamed.
Ultra...if you can't take it don't dish it out. Grown folks are discussing ideas. You're welcome to join the conversation with something more than, "I know you are but what am I".
invalid statements don't count. BTW liberals are communists.
CC
I've never claimed to be an expert in this area nor have I claimed that there is proof of MMGW. As I've said, the jury is still out.
The MOTHER of All Bull-Shyte Flags!
Christ ultra, you really DO think everyone forgets?
Oh, yea, you have insisted we ignore history. History lesson upcoming.
19April 2007:
Based on the evidence, I believe that global warming is a matter of fact today.
Because some argue scientific theory to the contrary doesn't make it any less real in my view. I don't believe that the movement to slow negative atmospheric changes, is a selfish ploy or corporate scheme.
And when offered the details that make his position so ludicrous:
20 April 2007:
Smokin,
Don't have the time to debate details with you on the internet.
And:
Smokinevidencecontradicts can post all of the eveidence that he liikes, and as I said, he and I are both aware that are that I can post evidence to the contary.
Yet, he never does, or will.
Stil, 20 April 2007:
I surely don't think that Gore's movement isn't flawed. But I also see his visions has having some reality.
Again, 22 April 2007:
Smokin,
You and I both know that I can cut and paste evidence to the contrary,
But never does. :idea:
So, you forgot your OWN history ultra, and are doomed to review it.
You were solidly a convinced pro-man-made global warming Gorovite as of 4 short months ago.
Smokin,
I believe today that global warming or climate change is a fact. Nothing has changed
From the beginning I have stated that the jury is still out with regard to it's cause. You seem to have conveniently left that part out. I'm not surprised
Just look at the lengths you will go to be prove you internet manhood . A terminal case of OCD no doubt.
I don't expect that anyone has forgotten anything. It's funny, you seem to to live for moments like this. It's also funny how you run and hide when you get nailed.
You've been ragging on me about this issue from day one and I don't expect that to stop. The jury is still out Smokin. There are thousands of pages on data on both side of this issue and seems to me that the experts are much better equipped to debate that factual basis of both sides then you or I. So I will wait until the jury's in and, in the mean time, continue driving my Civic and my Ultra Low Emission boat. (but not wth an AFR of 16:1)
Get a life dude, damn!
You're on the internet, try a search on your own for God's sake.
He doesn't have time, nor the interest.
Tex,
I grew up during similar times and will agree that some of what the modern day Democrat stands for was spawned by the, so called, hippie culture of the 60's. I find myself supporting conservative views with regard to less government and less spending, and liberal views with regard to war and the use of military force as a last resort. I would have little difficulty supporting a Republican or Democrat with similar views to those of Ron Pauls. I know we probably don't agree on this but I believe that President Bush, and his administration will be leaving giant mess for whoever wins the next election. Between Iraq and the Economy, whoever is elected will have their hands full. Based on the current electable offerings, I am afraid we will not see any cuts in govt spending or much change at all.
Your post was clear, generally accurate and very well written.
Thanks
Where do you people come from? It's hard to believe that this mentality still exsists in this great Country.
Demorats ARE commie-lite
Demorats ARE THE ENEMY. PERIOD
Republicans have been running this Country for 6 1/2 years. WTF? Sounds like you should be heading North to join up with Butler's clan up there in North ID. Nothing but white folks. That sounds good now doesn't it?
Sorry Mr. hypocrite but I'm no racist. I don't hate black folks, hispanics, or any other ethnic group. I hate hypocritical leftists with a passion and personally can't wait till you degenerates push your treasonous agenda too far. You're closer to the edge than you might think. And once you get there all your powers to lie, cheat and manipulate the system WILL NOT be able to save you. Keep pushing, brother.
Sorry Mr. hypocrite but I'm no racist. I don't hate black folks, hispanics, or any other ethnic group. I hate hypocritical leftists with a passion and personally can't wait till you degenerates push your treasonous agenda too far. You're closer to the edge than you might think. And once you get there all your powers to lie, cheat and manipulate the system WILL NOT be able to save you. Keep pushing, brother.
Interesting coment since the majority of blacks and hispanics are Democrats. And your interests, are "boats and guns" Now that's a scary fockin thought. You're a bit over the edge for me.
Interesting coment since the majority of blacks and hispanics are Democrats. And your interests, are "boats and guns" Now that's a scary fockin thought. You're a bit over the edge for me.
Why would that qualify as "scary"? Both are good, clean AMERICAN fun. Over the edge...hardly. To me you and your kind are well past "over the edge".
I'm not into anything different than what 10's of millions of other Americans are into.
Better ban more guns I guess, then you'll have less reason to be scared, huh?
I'll leave you with a quote I've always appreciated...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Thomas Jefferson
p.s. KEEP PUSHING, FOR GOD'S SAKE, KEEP PUSHING.
Why would that qualify as "scary"? Both are good, clean AMERICAN fun. Over the edge...hardly. To me you and your kind are well past "over the edge".
I'm not into anything different than what 10's of millions of other Americans are into.
Better ban more guns I guess, then you'll have less reason to be scared, huh?
I'll leave you with a quote I've always appreciated...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Thomas Jefferson
p.s. KEEP PUSHING, FOR GOD'S SAKE, KEEP PUSHING.
You ever shoot another person?
You ever shoot another person?
Of course not. What kinda stupid question is that? Have you? I shoot paper, ceramic/porcelain/stone tiles, and steel targets. If backed into a corner and forced to defend myself, my loved ones or the things I hold dear I'd have no problem laying someone out, but until then I'm merely an avid TARGET shooter.
Is that really the impression you have of gun owners, or just me (a guy you've never met)?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote