WeatherRusty Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 It's discussed in the link provided above. The article makes clear that the NH cooled while the SH warmed. Globally during the 70's temp was beginning it's multi-decadal rate of about +0.17C following a flattening during mid-century. The article is not talking about global mean temperature. It is discussing rapid shifts in SST's between hemispheres. Another case of Internal variability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The article makes clear that the NH cooled while the SH warmed. Globally during the 70's temp was beginning it's multi-decadal rate of about +0.17C following a flattening during mid-century. The article is not talking about global mean temperature. It is discussing rapid shifts in SST's between hemispheres. Another case of Internal variability. I am not sure why some posters on here are more concerned with splitting hairs than discussing the the content of the article. http://www.reuters.c...E68L3ZF20100922 Many experts had previously explained a slight global cooling around 1970 as a side-effect of a slow build-up of sun-dimming air pollution from factories, power plants and cars that cleared up in later years with stricter air pollution laws. But scientists in the United States and Britain said an examination of temperature records revealed "a rapid drop in Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperatures of about 0.3 degree Celsius (0.5 F) between about 1968 and 1972." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 I am not sure why some posters on here are more concerned with splitting hairs than discussing the the content of the article. http://www.reuters.c...E68L3ZF20100922 Many experts had previously explained a slight global cooling around 1970 as a side-effect of a slow build-up of sun-dimming air pollution from factories, power plants and cars that cleared up in later years with stricter air pollution laws. But scientists in the United States and Britain said an examination of temperature records revealed "a rapid drop in Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperatures of about 0.3 degree Celsius (0.5 F) between about 1968 and 1972." Two different articles presenting the same study of ocean variability. One mentions GLOBAL COOLING, the other does not. Maybe the HN cooled slighly more than the SH warmed, but what is the point? The temperature is never static due to the many modes of internal variability. You present another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 LOL! I certainly was not intending on this going off tangent into a 70's global cooling debate....Just trying to find out when exactly there was ANY debate about Man made GHG's causing global warming.....wondering when stupidity waned and smartness waxed, up to a tipping point where the smart scientists ended the debate......Phil's beloved Peterson paper would have you believe that sometime in the 70's is really when any debate should have taken place.....but I still see no evidence of such. So we went from a "little bit" of concern for global cooling....then a lull for a half decade or so....then concern for global warming, which seemingly grew quite quickly (considering the complexity of what was being studied...the climate system... and the "recent", modestly talked about, global cooling) to a point of "settled science" or "time for debate is over" type language..... I'm not sure there has ever been a scientific "debate" concerning the potential for warming arrising from significantly increased greenhouse gas concentrations. Where is it written there must be some sort of debate anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I'm not sure there has ever been a scientific "debate" concerning the potential for warming arrising from significantly increased greenhouse gas concentrations. Where is it written there must be some sort of debate anyway? It's been often said over the last 10+ years "the time for debate is over". So I'm just trying to find out when there was a time for debate, and when it became "over"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 It's been often said over the last 10+ years "the time for debate is over". So I'm just trying to find out when there was a time for debate, and when it became "over"..... I started this thread to elicit comments on what people believe is meant by statements such as "the science is settled" or if you wish " the time for debate is over". I ask what you think is being referred to as settled, or what what is it we no longer have to debate. I think it is rather obvious that questions like how much it will warm and where, how precipitation patterns will be altered, how rapidly the arctic sea ice and land based glaciers will deteriorate and how rapidly sea levels will rise where and when are open areas of continued research. Actual climate sensitivity is not well known. What is well understood is that the world is warming and that man's activities are the principle cause of that warming mostly by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Since actual emissions can only be estimated based on certain best guess scenarios and various tipping point thresholds are not well understood, we are entering uncharted waters in terms of exactly what will happen, when, where and how fast. It grows tiring listening to people mocking climate science with the "settled" argument when the many aspects surrounding the issue are not assigned proper levels of uncertainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 What is well understood is that the world is warming and that man's activities are the principle cause of that warming mostly by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. I agree that the planet is warming, but your second comment is unproven and wrong anyway. Third world agriculture is the largest source of GHG, not burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Now, I agree that carbon holds a role in climate vairiability, but I have yet to see smoking gun proof that it is the major driver of climate change. There are too many other variables that get scant attention, because the majority of money goes to AGW research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I agree that the planet is warming, but your second comment is unproven and wrong anyway. Third world agriculture is the largest source of GHG, not burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Now, I agree that carbon holds a role in climate vairiability, but I have yet to see smoking gun proof that it is the major driver of climate change. There are too many other variables that get scant attention, because the majority of money goes to AGW research. Could you please give us a source for your statement that 3rd world agriculture is the largest source of GHGs? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I agree that the planet is warming, but your second comment is unproven and wrong anyway. Third world agriculture is the largest source of GHG, not burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Now, I agree that carbon holds a role in climate vairiability, but I have yet to see smoking gun proof that it is the major driver of climate change. There are too many other variables that get scant attention, because the majority of money goes to AGW research. Please provide something for the multiple erroneous claims you have made in this post. alarmism is treated very poorly here. Should stuff like this be treated the same or worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 I agree that the planet is warming, but your second comment is unproven and wrong anyway. Third world agriculture is the largest source of GHG, not burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Now, I agree that carbon holds a role in climate vairiability, but I have yet to see smoking gun proof that it is the major driver of climate change. There are too many other variables that get scant attention, because the majority of money goes to AGW research. The largest sources of anthropogenically produced CO2 are from the burning of fossil fuels and the production of cement. Deforestation turns a carbon sink into a carbon source. Most man produced methane I think comes from the growing of rice, the digestive process of farmed bovine species (cattle), the byproduct of coal, gas and oil extraction and landfills. This RealClimate post explains how we know the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the burning of fossil fuels: SEE HERE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurricaneschwartz Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Regarding the time of "the science is settled", it was likely the mid 90s. After the Blizzard of '96 and the (then) snowiest winter on record, I did a sweeps period special on possible climate change. I got to interview Jerry Mahlman, Director of GFDL in Princeton, NJ, considered one of the world's leading experts on climate. When I asked him about the debate on whether humans were a significant factor in global warming he said: "The debate is over. We have moved on to figuring out the details." That was Feb. 1996. Glenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 Regarding the time of "the science is settled", it was likely the mid 90s. After the Blizzard of '96 and the (then) snowiest winter on record, I did a sweeps period special on possible climate change. I got to interview Jerry Mahlman, Director of GFDL in Princeton, NJ, considered one of the world's leading experts on climate. When I asked him about the debate on whether humans were a significant factor in global warming he said: "The debate is over. We have moved on to figuring out the details." That was Feb. 1996. Glenn Thank you. LEK may appreciate your first hand encounter pinning the date at no later than the mid 90s. In reality though, I doubt some sort of collective pronouncement was ever made proclaiming consensus on the matter or that a show of hands was taken on a certain date. More likely a gradual accumulation of evidence lead to the growing recognition by those working in the field of mankind's involvement in the warming of our planet. The following website chronicals the developments that have brought about the scientific consensus: The Discovery of Global Warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 bump for hambone--this is the second thread where he's made this assertion and run away when asked to verify it. To borrow a term from the consulting world - I would describe Hambone as a 'Seagull Commenter'. He flies in, craps all over everything while making a lot of noise, and flies off. In terms of signal to noise ratio his posts are pure noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 He did say it yesterday afternoon. Maybe he looks once a day on the site and not every five minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 IF we ask everyday for Hambone to come back to back his erroneous claims. The mods will eventually delete the thread or posts or threaten bans on the folks asking for verification while hambone gets to spread lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.