Global warming illogical?

Question

Can anyone explain why non climatologists (cite the paers if you disagree) in the 70s incorrectly predicting global cooling, implies that climatologists in the 90s predicting global warming are wrong.

Please explain, I find it very confusing.

I'm confused as why people think one effects the other. I know there is no link except in some peoples' minds

Answer 1

NO ONE knows for sure so they guessitmate

Answer 2

There is a axiom in logic that if you start with a false proposition you can prove anything. The point being that nobody "predicted" global cooling in the 70s. It was an observation and the observation was not incorrect. The reasons why they globe cooled in the 60's and 70's were explained in the context of what is known about radiative transfer and aerosols, and then science moved on. Starting from the false proposition that climate models predicted global cooling in the 70s allows you to imply modeling global warming in the 21st century is wrong. However, because that initial premise is false, proving anything from it is possible, and the results of that proof are irrelevant as far as reality is concerned.

Maybe a Venn diagram would make that clearer.

Answer 3

One of the biggest reasons for the difference in that those is the 90's have tools and equipment not available before. It becomes confusing perhaps because in order to judge the credibility of a statement, you first have to decide the credentials of the person making the statement Those in Michigan, for example, who deny global warming have a lot to lose in terms of cars contributing to the problem if real so they simply deny in hopes of it not affecting car sales and their financial future.
The basic fact, I think, about global warming can be illustrated by this. Go into a bar early in the evening when few people are there and the bar may even be somewhat cool but when enough bodies come in, the body temperature of the patrons raises the inside temperature of the bar to the point doors have to be opened or air conditioning turned on.
Then multiply that by the billions of new births each year around the world and you see body temperature of new borns - and therefor people - will raise the earth's temperature just as it did the inside of the bar. Check Union of concerned Scientist online and you will learn a lot more about this.

Answer 4

You once said you do not read the links provided in answers. I hope you will read it this time because it is important for you to read this in the scientists own words. It is not that difficult.

Rasool, a scientist with NASA, wrote in 1971 that he feared global cooling because of aerosols. He dismissed global warming because he knew CO2 has a logarithmic effect. That is that amount of warming caused by each new molecule of CO2 in the air causes less warming than the last molecule. This is the Law of Diminishing Returns in nature.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138

Scientists still agree that a logarithmic effect exists in rising CO2 but because CO2 is rising exponentially, some believe the warming effect will be nearly straight line. Skeptics tend to believe that Rasool was correct and the logarithmic effect has already begun to flatten out and increased CO2 will not have a big effect.

Answer 5

So then, going off of the other answers regarding aerosol cans (we stopped using them, ice age crisis adverted) and the temp warms up. So now we should contain the warming trend and use everything aerosol.

Humans have very little, if anything, to do with climate change. ALgore is an idiot, and those that believe his fiction should not watch 28 days or 28 weeks (as it will happen...it was made into a movie, wasn't it???). Don't forget to ban volcanoes...1 eruption puts more crap into the air than all the humans thru history combined.

I await the day that the coasts are flooded and all those poor people drown. Good. The polar bears need fresh meat...they can swim very good for hundreds of miles.

A fool and his scifi. are soon converted to believing in global warming/cooling/end of days/doom and gloom...now give up your money to help "fix" the problems humans have created.

Answer 6

It's just another illogical argument.

First off the premise is that scientists predicted that the short-term cooling would lead to an impending ice age. This is a false premise.

There is a nugget of truth to it - climate models suggested that IF aerosol emissions continued to increase at the same rate they were rising in the '70s and prior, that could eventually trigger an ice age (around 2020, as I recall). Of course, we got our aerosol emissions under control shortly thereafter, and in fact they have completely stopped increasing since the '90s, so this scenario simply never happened.

Some in the media took this potential scare and ran with it. That's the only reason people even know about it today, because most scientists were not making long-term predictions based on the short-term cooling. Climate science wasn't sufficiently advanced for them to do so.

False claims aside, even IF there were scientists in the '70s warning of an impending ice age, that's still completely irrelevant for 2 reasons.

1) Climate science is now almost 4 decades more advanced. Climate simulations are now run on supercomputers, for instance. Climatology was a very young science in 1970.

2) The scenario on which the ice age prediction was based did not happen! Similarly, we'll avoid the projection of an impending catastrophic climate change if we get our greenhouse gas emissions under control.

In other words, even IF the claims were true of the '70s scientists' predictions being wrong, that's just an illustration of the public listening to scientists and getting (aerosol) emissions under control. We should be doing the same with regards to CO2 emissions!

Answer 7

In the first place, climatoligists in the 1970s did not 'predict global cooling." What they did do (remember, this was when the field was ust starting) speculated that the Earth might at some point enter another Ice Age. But they did not "predict" this and thee was certainly no scientific consensus. You'll not that the crackpots who claim othrwise never cite any scientific journals--jsut pop science articles in Time, Newsweek, etc.

Their goal is not to discredit modern climatoligists. If you follow these so-called skeptics, you'll find they are--or get their nonsense--from two groups. One is the special interests--oil companies, mainly--who are simply interested in protecting their privileged position because their obsolete technology can't compete with modern energy technology if its allowed to get a real foothold. The other group are the religious right--and their goal is simple--to discredit science as a whole. They are as anti-science as they are anti-Christian (real Christians, I mean) but stand no chance of retaining their eroding hold on their followers unless they can keep them confused and mistrustful of outsiders.

Answer 8

depends some people "claim" that in the 1970s people didnt say global cooling .. fact they did google it and read all about it..

second. science is.. like a guessing game. someone says Hey i think this is what happens.. and then trys to prove it wrong and as long as noone debunks it.. that is the FACT...

well, in a few years global warming will be debunked and the new fact will stand.. you have to remember that if people how are screaming global warming are correct then we can fix it.. look at the link below and consider that we start growing algae farms to eat co2.... then the problem goes away....

just remember one thing.. the gov. will not fix the problem.. the gov. has never fixed any problem, only private sector can fix this

Answer 9

I don't think it implies anything. The people in the 70's were wrong, but there have been technological advancements since then. And if the temperature was either going to rise or fall, and one group predicted each, then one was right!

Answer 10

Global warming started after the year 1995 ,It is fully logical .I too felt many times that weather is changing day by day which is only due to global worming.It is only due to incoming of many industries which releases the carbon dioxide gas through their stack/chimneys of their boilers.Either we use natural gas or other fuel but we are increasing the level of carbon dioxide gas in our environment.CFC and Chlorine also reducing the level of Ozone gas present in the atmosphare.

Answer 11

If I told you the world was flat, there were two Suns in our solar system or that it was warmer in London than Cairo you could come up with any amount of evidence to prove me wrong.

Now, tell a skeptic that the world is warming and we're partly to blame and they can't come up with any evidence to prove you wrong, there isn't any, they can't even come up with a reasonable alternative explanation. In the absence of such evidence they have to either invent their own or try to discredit the real evidence.

They've been challenged time and time again to come up with the goods and show evidence to back up their claims but of course, it's not forthcoming because it doesn't exist. Not that that matters as the same tired old arguments are incessantly trotted out.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Just for the record, and you may already be aware of this...

The 1970's saw the end of a period of approx 30 years of 'global dimming' in which average global temps were pegged below their 'normal' level due to substantial emissions of particulate matter into the atmosphere. This material both blocked out sunlight and reflected solar radiation back into space, the consequence of which was that the planet cooled. The same thing happens in the aftermath of major volcanic eruptions and by and large it's the same gas that's responsible - sulphur dioxide. The Clean Air Acts that were passed by governments around the world ensured that atmospheric pollution levels fall and so by the 70's the underlying global warming trend was once more the dominant factor affecting global temps.

Further, there are complex interacting cycles that determine the long-term climate of our planet. Over time they cause warming and cooling cycles.

Back in the 70's (as before and since) scientists were studying these phenomena and quite correctly concluded that, in time, they will lead to global cooling in the absence of other intervening factors. The time scales they were talking about were 100,000 years for glacial / interglacials and upwards of 100 million years for complete ice age cycles.

There were no dire warnings of impending ice ages or global cooling; not from the scientists at least. The story, such as it was, amounted to media sensationalism and distortion. It amounted to nothing more than a handful of short journalistic articles and the odd book or two written by people with no understanding of the climate but looking to make a fast buck.