If during the seventies global cooling was the latest alarmist trend, why should we believe the Global warming

Question

environmental leftists now?

Answer 1

Hey, I'm not going to get into the politics of alarmist or whatever or even debate global warming/cooling. I just have a simple thought experiment. What I will ask you to do is look at this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/bitesize/higher/img/geography/physical/atmosphere/warming_02globalmean.gif

So what I get from looking at this is that there is a cooling trend around the seventies. This trend is quite small compared to the overall warming since the industrial revolution, 1880s, or even compared to the warming after the seventies. My thought based on that is that if they were being "alarmist" about that, then they should be something like 8-10 times as alarmist now about global warming. And it has only gotten warmer since the end of that graph.

Cheers

Answer 2

I took a college geology course a few years ago . . . Like maybe 15 or so years ago . . . And in that course the instructor explained that the earth fluctuated between a round orbit of the sun and an elliptical orbit. He said that we were moving towards the transition from a round orbit, where the weather was fairly mild and predictable, to an elliptical orbit where we would see the onset of the next ice age, with long freezing winters and short hot summers. He said we would see the beginning of this transition in our lifetimes. He presented very compelling evidence and I am a believer.

I think the huge thing now about global warming, and I do believe the evidence weighs in favor of global warming being very real, is that we are in the process of killing off all the animal and plant life in the arctic regions that depend on the weather being very cold. And if we are doing that just before the onset of another ice age, we could be in very dire straights. To kill the animals and plants that could adapt to an ice age, just before the onset of the next one, could be an act that seals our own doom.

Lets hope that I am the professor are wrong. But perhaps we should do our best to prevent the escalation of global warming, just in case.

Answer 3

For the case of the 70s, the equipment back then was much more dated, there was a lack of massive computing power, a lot of the algorithms today are much more advanced from all the knowledge gained in the 30-40 years.

Aside from the simple rise in temperature. Several global geologists have charted a faster melting of the ice caps than the normal cycle of the earth dictates.

The receeding of the permafrost is also evident in our time, where the more it melts, the more underground deposits of methane are released therefore a greater increase in temperature.

Point is, that just because something was discovered to be false a technological millenia ago, doesn't mean that all future research is doomed to be wrong.

Science so far has moved forward, having a pessimistic view of the research simply because it hasn't directly affected you, doesn't make it less likely of being true

Lastly in my view, denying the global warming idea is to simply claim that the majority of world's scientists are idiots. Seems kinda harsh and uneducated.

Answer 4

i be attentive to that there has been no elevation in temperatures for the reason that 1998. Now does international warming exist? of direction it does. this is a organic phenomenon because of the fact the Earth does not stay at a consistent temperature, yet fluctuates through time. that's been plenty warmer interior the previous as evidenced by ability of the undeniable fact that Greenland became as quickly as without ice. it gets warmer and it will improve into cooler. Now does guy made international warming exist? No....They scream, cry and whine that CO2 is raising the temperatures yet have you ever seen a scientific learn that shows a given quantity of CO2 will improve temperature a definite style of ranges? No, because of the fact it does not. when I see a learn that shows an instantaneous correlation between CO2 ranges and temperature elevation i could evaluate the priority as valid. there is none. undergo in ideas the scientific approach somewhat says you would be able to wish first of all a theory and function the flexibility to objective it for validity and then try it as quickly as returned to work out if the outcomes could be reproduced (in basic terms placed). No the guy made international warming is yet a hoax from the environmental wingnuts. Oh sure and remember approximately to apply your "specific" easy bulbs (that incorporate mercury) to wrestle that carbon footprint all you evironmental heathens are leaving on mom earth!

Answer 5

Dig a little deeper. Your approaching the question with an obvious bias and lack of depth. It's not brain surgery to look at when the last ice age ended, then consider the cyclic trend of ice ages going back say 100,000 years and then do the math. We are due for another ice age. This is one more argument by the "product defense industry" which sews distrust in sound science because it conflicts with corporate profits. Put some scientists on the payroll, dummy up some conflicting studies, hire some news pundits to push it and create false grassroots polical action groups to lobby government. Sound familiar? It should, the tobacco industry pioneered product defense. God, it just makes me ill to think about it. Put it in perspective, here are the worlds most powerful corporations, keeping us on oil just a little longer, a little longer so the profits continue to roll in? At stake is all the species that can't quickly adapt to the soon to come radically altered environment in which they live. Oh, that includes homo sapiens too. Greatest crime of all history? Maybe. Tell me, are you on the payroll or does your body grow wool?

Answer 6

Excuse me, but "virtually all scientists agree" is not science...not even close. You cannot have science by concensus. What you are witnessing, but do not comprehend is the now belated peer review process, which has been severely hindered by all the hype about global warming.

Earth warming - yes
Human caused - no
Human contribution - sure, but is it significant? No one knows.

Sources of global warming; Solar output, tilt of the Earth's axis (it's not constant), orbit of the Earth around the Sun (also variable), other astronomical causes less significant, atmospheric gases such as CO2, methane, water vapor, and so on....nuclear reactions within the earth? probably...sea currents...

They can't tell me if it will rain on Saturday. Do you think anyone really knows what will happen next year? 10 years? 100 years?

Answer 7

You can look out your window and on the weather channel, fool...I really hope this was just a test question...if you don't believe anything like Hurricane Katrina will happen again, just because we had 1 mild season...guess again...I give it 1-2 years & then it will be Houston or Miami or New Orleans again, or maybe all 3!
We don't have 1/2 the ice we had in the world 40 years ago...if we lose it all...say goodbye to NYC, coastal CA, Boston, Miami & Ft Lauderdale, etc...

Answer 8

this is one of the scariest parts of global warming. technically we should be in that global cooling trend. but because of what we have been doing to our ATM, that trend has reversed with amazing speed.

if one looks at the data, there is no other good explaination for how far out of normal temp's we are in other than increased CO2/other green house gases.

Answer 9

I think it was not the case after the world wars and industrial revolution global warming is at alrming heights. This is due to the high emmissions of green house gases and use of High CFCs which caused depletion of ozone. Urbanization by destructing forests.

Answer 10

scientific speculations by people who know what they're talking about?