They in no way resemble today thousands of climatologists, backed by a mountain of data and the endorsement of EVERY major scientific organization.
Global warming is proven scientific fact. Mostly it%26#039;s man made.
Good websites for more info:
http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...
http://www.realclimate.org
%26quot;climate science from climate scientists%26quot;
http://environment.newscientist.com/chan... 25% 39 Votes
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimm... 3% 4 Votes will see that there was a downturn about 1940 and everyone expected the natural cooling cycle to kick in.
However instead the temperature stays readily steady for a about twenty five years. If this had been a stock exchange price graph I would say that the buyers and the sellers were fighting it out. Eventually the temperature starts to rise and has been rising for the last thirty years.
My interpretation is that the natural cooling forces were competing with the man made warming forces and in the end the man made warming forces won.
I think you have just made a good argument for man made global warming :-) 0% 0 Votes
One can guess that there was more money claiming global warming.
The truth is that no one can predict the future. No one can tell you if it will be warmer or colder 5 years from now. Anyone that claims to know is just speaking their opinion. They are no more accurate than a coin toss. 1% 2 Votes
The NYT notes concern over CO2 levels and fears that production of energy %26#039;heat waste%26#039; will generate so much heat as to have a major climate impact. That did represent an emerging scientific concern of its time.
This is a link to a detailed look on Digg at how the story came about.
http://www.digg.com/environment/The_NY_T...
A quick summary is here:
In 1975 the National Academy of Science (NAS) applied for funds to ‘Establish a national climatic research program’.
Some journalists went to town to try and convince readers this was important stuff.
The NY Times 1975 article was based on the same story as Newsweek’s ‘Cooling world’.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage...
So don’t blame scientists, it was different approaches by (doubtless hard pressed) journalists.
The Newsweek article was written by staff writer: Peter Gwynne.
Not written a climatologist.
Nor is its conclusion – Global Cooling - based on any scientific paper published in a scientific journal. My guess it was a case of staff writer trying to fill a couple of pages in a quiet week for news and trying to make a dull paper requesting funding for climate research interesting.
So blame Newsweek for that one. (They have apologised since.)
As for is global warming really happening?
The tropics have expanded by 2 degrees latitude in the past 26 years.
The Greenland weather service reports that average temperatures have risen by 2.7 degrees F over the past 30 years. The growing season is 2 weeks longer.
The average annual temperature of the North Sea has risen by 1 degree C in the past decade.
In the last decade or so Japan’s annual average temperature has been between 0.2 and one degree higher than the average recorded in the last 30 years of the 20th Century.
The average temperature in Sweden has risen by one degree centigrade over the last fifteen years, according to Swedish meteorological institute SMHI. In Norrland the average winter temperature has gone up by a full two degrees. Statistics for Sweden show that the country has grown warmer and wetter over the last fifteen years. The country is on average a full one degree warmer, mainly as a result of warmer winters.
The average winter temperature on the coast of Norrland has increased by 2.2 degrees.
Over the past 50 years, the USA’s southwest region has warmed by 1.4 degrees F. Also over the past 50 years, however, there has been a decline in the average snowfall, and if the trend continues 50 more years, Western US snow packs could be reduced by up to 60 percent reducing the flow into rivers. The American West is already experiencing droughts.
In Africa%26#039;s large catchment basins of Niger, Lake Chad, and Senegal, total available water has decreased by 40 to 60 per cent, and desertification has been worsened by lower average annual rainfall, runoff, and soil moisture, especially in southern, northern, and western Africa.
The two major periods of warming and cooling in the past 1000yrs - Medieval warming %26amp; the little ice age - were due to an increase, then a decrease in solar activity. (Sun spots.) There’s nothing comparable today.
NASA reports an increase of solar irradiance in the past 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, but the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. ‘It is not enough to cause notable climate change.’ NASA. 2003. This has been supported by seveal world ranking (ie nobel prize winning) astronomical institutes.
The link between (and the physics and chemistry of) greenhouse gasses and Earth’s temperature has been proved. Even many sceptics (Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Lomborg etc) accept that. The carbon cycle and its role in earths climate going back 100’s of millions of years has been thoroughly researched and is now well understood.
The onus is on those that don’t believe this to convincingly demonstrate why this is not so.
In June 2006 President G.W. Bush said at a press conference on the subject:
‘The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world.’ 1% 1 Vote
Now you can hardly find a scientist who doesn%26#039;t agree that there is credible evidence for warming due to greenhouse gases. 0% 0 Votes