PDA

View Full Version : 1974 Time article: Science: Another Ice Age?



sack316
12-21-2010, 11:19 AM
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html

Interesting stuff.

Sack

Chopstick
12-21-2010, 02:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun.
</div></div>


<span style="color: #000099">Really? Ya think!</span>

sack316
12-21-2010, 04:49 PM
lol, as I said... interesting.

Like what you quoted. Well science says cooling will occur because what is in the atmosphere blocks the suns energy from reaching us, creating the cooling effect. Science also says heating will occur because what is in the atmosphere blocks the energy that reaches us from escaping back out, creating the warming effect.

Exact same "causes", two entirely different effects for the same phenomenon?

I also noted how they measured a 2.7 degree drop in temperature at that time (from 1940-1974). Now, part of the global warming scare was that (according to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) the temperature rose by 1.04 degrees from the 1970's until the middle part of this decade.

So roughly a 35 year span in each... one a warning because of the 2.7 degree drop. OK, fair enough. Now our warning is because of a 1.04 degree rise... which doesn't even make up for the possible cataclysmic drop that nearly ended us the first time!

Sack

Deeman3
12-21-2010, 07:06 PM
Listen, they learned in the 1970's that there is not a lot of funding for global cooling, therefore it must be warming! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Qtec
12-21-2010, 08:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Global dimming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.[1]

It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend in 1990 happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline.

Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.</span>

Deliberate manipulation of this dimming effect is now being considered as a geoengineering technique to reduce the impact of global warming. </div></div>

watch it (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382#)

Actually, everyone should watch this.

Q

sack316
12-22-2010, 01:30 AM
yes, without your linkie we have an idea of what global warming and global dimming are via my layman explanation. Actually, according to science they are the same thing.

So you say global dimming perhaps masked the effect of global warming... how do we know global warming isn't perhaps masking the effect of global dimming, and we are about to approach that great next ice age science warned us about in the article?

Or maybe address how we cooled 2.7 degrees from '40-'74, and have only warmed back up less than half of that since then... yet the <u>same</u> science will say (IIRC) '98, no wait 2008, no wait 1934, no wait 2010 is the hottest year on record?

Something is flawed somewhere, because looking at all the "facts" it doesn't add up. And so who is to say what to truly believe? We have "facts" from 1974. We have "facts" from the last decade that contradict those findings. We have "facts" from the beloved wikileaks that contradict the findings from that last decade. And we have Van Jones on video now basically saying "make it up as you go" to get the agenda across.

To be brutally honest, I don't know what it right. What pisses me off is that some people pretend that they do...

Sack

LWW
12-22-2010, 02:28 AM
The Goremons are proof of the old adage that figures don't lie but liars can figure.

Today the Goremons are using the 1970 ice sheets as their baseline to show much they have receded ... dishonestly hiding that they are merely going back to where they were before.

Newsweek ran a similar article in the 1970's and the Goremons of the day thought we should cover the polar ice caps with black soot to melt them and raise the Earth's temperature.

LWW

Chopstick
12-22-2010, 09:09 AM
I should have quoted more of the article to put it into context. That is what I found so funny about it. The sun is not a light bulb. It does not burn at a constant rate. One simple version is this. The core of the sun heats up the outer gas ball. The gas ball expands. As it expands it loses heat to space. When it loses enough heat it contracts and gets heated up again. Hotter--colder---hotter again. Back and forth.

To put it into context as I see it:

http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/sun-etc.jpg

Now people want to tell me that nanodot on that spec of a planet is more responsible for temperature variation than that big honking nuclear fireball.

Deeman3
12-22-2010, 09:21 AM
LOL!

cushioncrawler
12-22-2010, 04:04 PM
Okay -- lets look at it simply.
Some say that a growing Red monster iz approaching -- and it will harm most of us -- and that we kan reduce Red's growth if we do some Green things.
Some say that a White monster iz approaching -- and that Whitey will reduce Red's harm, especially if we feed Whitey to make Whitey bigger.
Some say that the Red monster duznt exist -- or iznt big -- or iz big but that there iz no Green fix -- or that the Green fix will be too kostly and unlikely to help very much -- or that Red iz aktually the "good" monster, ie Whitey iz the "bad" monster.
Some say that even if the Red monster duznt exist the Green fix will do some much needed good anyhow.

I reckon we shood go with Green in a big way.
Feeding the White monster iz ok too -- az long az it duznt involv some sort of hairBrained scheme that karnt be reversed (eg like dusting the arctik with black).
mac.

cushioncrawler
12-22-2010, 04:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now people want to tell me that that nanodot on that spec of a planet is more responsible for temperature variation than that big honking nuclear fireball.</div></div>No chops No -- what people want to tell u iz this.

People want to tell u that IF the nanodots are responsible for temp varyation, then they MIGHT be turning that spec of a planet into a dead planet (like all of thems others), and that it WOULD be a good idea if the nanodots stopped being irresponsible.
WOULD be a good idea -- not MIGHT.
mac.

LWW
12-22-2010, 05:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I should have quoted more of the article to put it into context. That is what I found so funny about it. The sun is not a light bulb. It does not burn at a constant rate. One simple version is this. The core of the sun heats up the outer gas ball. The gas ball expands. As it expands it loses heat to space. When it loses enough heat it contracts and gets heated up again. Hotter--colder---hotter again. Back and forth.

To put it into context as I see it:

http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/sun-etc.jpg

Now people want to tell me that nanodot on that spec of a planet is more responsible for temperature variation than that big honking nuclear fireball. </div></div>

You don't seriously expect me to believe that the Sun has more of an impact on the Earth's climate than my V8 truck?

LWW

cushioncrawler
12-22-2010, 06:13 PM
The V8 changes the atmostphere.
Different atmostphere = different klimate.
mac.

LWW
12-23-2010, 04:05 AM
So do cow farts and clouds ... both of which are larger contributors to the greenhouse gas totals than every pickup truck on Earth combined.

And your point was ... what?

LWW

Qtec
12-23-2010, 04:58 AM
Some people want to tell you that the whole Universe was created for us.

Q

Qtec
12-23-2010, 05:04 AM
Before us, the Earth regulated itself. Now that we have destroyed the eco system, the Earth can't fight back against our destruction of the environment.

Things are bound to go haywire.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared the state of emergency in areas including Orange County amid warnings of a further monster storm expected to bring tornadoes.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Downtown Los Angeles received one third of its annual average rainfall in less than a week.</span> In suburbs just north of the city that were scarred by wildfires last year up to two inches of rain per hour fell, leading to fears of major landslides.

East of the city the normally dry Mojave River was running 17ft deep and rescuers save dozens of stranded motorists.

More than 12 inches of rain fell in mountains outside Los Angeles and California ski resorts were deluged with more than 15ft of snow. Disneyland cancelled plans to shower visitors with artificial snow to mark the holiday season. Scientists said the freak rainfall was the result of a storm from the Gulf of Alaska hitting subtropical moisture from the Pacific Ocean.

They described the storm battering the West Coast as an "atmospheric river" similar in nature, although not in scale, to California's "Great Flood" of 1861-62 which bankrupted the state. </div></div>

Q.

LWW
12-23-2010, 05:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now that we have destroyed the eco system

Q. </div></div>

How did we do that?

And, if you really believe that ... why aren't you doing "YOUR FAIR SHARE" and live in a cave?

Myself, I realize that the air and water are cleaner today than a century ago and live guilt free in a properly heated and cooled home with 5 motor vehicles at my disposal.

LWW

sack316
12-23-2010, 08:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Before us, the Earth regulated itself. Now that we have destroyed the eco system, the Earth can't fight back against our destruction of the environment.

Things are bound to go haywire.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared the state of emergency in areas including Orange County amid warnings of a further monster storm expected to bring tornadoes.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Downtown Los Angeles received one third of its annual average rainfall in less than a week.</span> In suburbs just north of the city that were scarred by wildfires last year up to two inches of rain per hour fell, leading to fears of major landslides.

East of the city the normally dry Mojave River was running 17ft deep and rescuers save dozens of stranded motorists.

More than 12 inches of rain fell in mountains outside Los Angeles and California ski resorts were deluged with more than 15ft of snow. Disneyland cancelled plans to shower visitors with artificial snow to mark the holiday season. Scientists said the freak rainfall was the result of a storm from the Gulf of Alaska hitting subtropical moisture from the Pacific Ocean.

They described the storm battering the West Coast as an "atmospheric river" similar in nature, although not in scale, to California's "Great Flood" of 1861-62 which bankrupted the state. </div></div>

Q. </div></div>

After years of drought. Articles on this also say:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For all the perils of the torrential rains, there was a silver lining: The water is expected to help ease the effects of years of drought.

The rain was a boost for drought-stricken farmers and cities statewide that have been forced to patrol water use after three bone-dry years.</div></div>

Maybe the Earth is still regulating itself

Sack

Chopstick
12-23-2010, 08:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some people want to tell you that the whole Universe was created for us.

Q </div></div>

Yes, they do. I tell them I do not believe them and please go away.

Chopstick
12-23-2010, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Before us, the Earth regulated itself. <span style="color: #000099">It still does.</span>

Now that we have destroyed the eco system, the Earth can't fight back against our destruction of the environment. <span style="color: #000099">The environment cannot be destroyed. It can only be changed. Man may not be happy with what it changed into. Life is far more resilient than you may suspect. I heard a story from NASA on TV. They retrieved a camera from one of the earlier moon missions. When they examined the inside of the camera under a microscope they found dormant bacteria. Apparently someone had sneezed while assembling the camera originally. They put the bacteria in a culture dish and it woke up and grew. Ten years on the surface of the moon, in a hard vacuum, exposed to solar radiation and extremes of temperature with no protection, and it just picked up where it left off like nothing had happened. I think we are being arrogant if we think we are going to destroy something like that. </span>

Things are bound to go haywire.

<span style="color: #000099">Things have always been haywire. It doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that you guys won't sell weed to non-residents anymore. I was hoping to come over and visit and I'm not coming for the coffee. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </span>

</div></div>

LWW
12-23-2010, 02:26 PM
It's funny how easily the Goremons can be whipped into a frenzy.

If you have 3 inches of rain a year for 4 years and 18 inches a year in the fifth year that's 30 inches of rain over 5 years ... or an average of 6 per year.

Now a Goremon can be pimped for 4 years that the <u><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 14pt'>EEEVILLL</span></span></u> capitalist system has caused a drought of only half the average ... and in the fifth year they can be pimped that the <u><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 14pt'>EEEVILLL</span></span></u> capitalist system has caused a deluge of 2 and a half times the average.

With doublethink they will believe both to be true ... even though nothing out of the ordinary has happened at all.

Only a complete buffoon believes that the Earth's climate is, was, or will ever be static.

Witness the thread on the TIME article about global cooling ... the Goremons use the expansion of the ice pack from the 1930's to the 1970's as proof that the <u><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 14pt'>EEEVILLL</span></span></u> capitalists are killing the planet. Then, when the ice caps retract back to where they claim they should have remained ... they see it as proof as proof that the <u><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 14pt'>EEEVILLL</span></span></u> capitalists are killing the planet.

Doublethink is a devastating disease.

LWW

sack316
12-23-2010, 03:52 PM
yeah Dub, it's crazy!

Like every year, it seems like when fall comes around it starts to cool off. Then winter arrives and it may even get cold. Oddly, around spring it starts to warm up... and then a few months later it's downright hot outside! What in the world have we done???

Sack

LWW
12-23-2010, 04:20 PM
I blame 8 years of Bush starting unnecessary wars while Cheney sat it quadruple top secret meetings killing off our environmental safeguards so that Rumsfeld could arm Saddam Hussein with the illegal Wall Street profits generated by the rethuglican pigdogs by abusing the welfare class who would be sent back to picking cotton if it wasn't for Obama.

LWW

Sev
12-23-2010, 07:41 PM
And yet the EPA is now regulating carbon. That bureaucracy needs to be gutted.

LWW
12-24-2010, 02:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And yet the EPA is now regulating carbon. That bureaucracy needs to be gutted. </div></div>

The founders of this nation would be ashamed of us as a people that we tolerate such dictatorial actions by the state.

LWW

cushioncrawler
12-24-2010, 05:10 PM
Now people want to tell me that nanodot on that spec of a planet is more responsible for temperature variation than that big honking nuclear fireball [Chops].

You don't seriously expect me to believe that the Sun has more of an impact on the Earth's climate than my V8 truck? [LWW].

Hmmmmm -- all of this gets me thinking of how/why astrologysts are happy to believe that the planets hav more impakt on nanodot love and nanodot finance than that big honking nuclear fireball.
mac.

LWW
12-25-2010, 04:10 AM
IMHO it's because their collective knowledge of science is on par with that of the Goremons.

LWW

hondo
12-25-2010, 08:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's funny how easily the Goremons can be whipped into a frenzy.

If you have 3 inches of rain a year for 4 years and 18 inches a year in the fifth year that's 30 inches of rain over 5 years ... or an average of 6 per year.

Now a Goremon can be pimped for 4 years that the <u><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 14pt'>EEEVILLL</span></span></u> capitalist system has caused a drought of only half the average ... and in the fifth year they can be pimped that the <u><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 14pt'>EEEVILLL</span></span></u> capitalist system has caused a deluge of 2 and a half times the average.

With doublethink they will believe both to be true ... even though nothing out of the ordinary has happened at all.

Only a complete buffoon believes that the Earth's climate is, was, or will ever be static.

Witness the thread on the TIME article about global cooling ... the Goremons use the expansion of the ice pack from the 1930's to the 1970's as proof that the <u><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 14pt'>EEEVILLL</span></span></u> capitalists are killing the planet. Then, when the ice caps retract back to where they claim they should have remained ... they see it as proof as proof that the <u><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 14pt'>EEEVILLL</span></span></u> capitalists are killing the planet.

Doublethink is a devastating disease.

LWW </div></div>


To be brutally honest, I don't know what it right. What pisses me off is that some people pretend that they do...

Sack


LOL! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

moblsv
12-25-2010, 05:28 PM
There is a big difference between a media article stating that "a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect..." and a well established collection of evidence, peer reviewed articles, detailed models, near scientific consensus on major points...

The irony is that "global cooling" does occur from some of the pollutants in the atmosphere. The data and conclusion are real. Some things we put up there cause cooling, some warming. There is just a much heavier weighting to those that cause warming.

Time article != science

cushioncrawler
12-25-2010, 06:09 PM
Klimaxologysts are full of baloney -- karnt trustem.
They dont even know what/how causes tornados -- lots of stupid theorys about horizontal vorticity -- jetstreams, etc etc.
Me, myself, i took a pencil and paper to bed -- and i took 30 minutes to find the solution (no jokes please about having the solution in hand).
Yes, 30 minutes and i had the key -- and only then did i google to find that solution -- but, no, nothing, nothing like madMac's solution -- just crazy theorys.
I like watching tornado stuff on TV -- but i get a bad taste in my mouth re the shit-science they spew forth.
So, i dont hav a lot of faith in GW science neither.
mac.

LWW
12-26-2010, 03:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: moblsv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a big difference between a media article stating that "a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect..." and a well established collection of evidence, peer reviewed articles, detailed models, near scientific consensus on major points...
</div></div>

True ... the problem with the Goremons is they swear they have all of this yet can't produce any of it.

LWW

cushioncrawler
12-26-2010, 05:58 PM
Scientists should pray.
But being evil or good, or just or unjust, dont change the weather one bit.
mac.


What the Bible says about the Weather
1 Samuel 12:18
So Samuel called unto the LORD; and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day.

James 5:17
Elias ... prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.

Matthew 5:45
He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, , and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

cushioncrawler
12-26-2010, 06:01 PM
38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, (38:22-23)

"Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war"

God has snow and hail stored up to use later in time of trouble and war.
38:23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?

38:25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;

38:26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;

38:27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?

38:28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?

38:29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? (38:29) "Out of whose womb came the ice?"

Gosh, I don't know. Was it Glinda, the Good Witch of the North?
38:30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.