Thanks for clarifying that. LOL.
Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
Thanks for clarifying that. LOL.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Oh, what duplicity.
Please enlarge the dates of each article; you'll find 40 years difference.
The article written in 1974 was a general op-ed by Ed Driscoll
The 2014 article is from the "science section" by Bryan Walsh.
I commend you on your powers of observation, Watson. The point of the post was to highlight the 'change' in 'climate' over time (global cooling was being floated then, warming now). What will they be feeding you in another 40 yrs--given those rubes who do the science? "Opps we were wrong...now it's this"...'Opps we hadn't taken into account these things so now'....etc. Or the whole climate gate revelations of deliberate changes/ommissions etc. Those types--among others--do the science and try and shape public opinion.
Nice try but there was no concensus among climatologists that there was global cooling like there is now about global warming. An article or even a series of articles does not make a consensus. But of course you are only interested in pretending there is no current warming (for whatever reason). Fox 'news' frequently states that there is no global warming - that in itself should be huge clue that global warming is occuring.
Neither of those articles says what is attirbuted to them. It is, at best, intellectually dishonest cherry-picking.
Just to illustrate how spectacularly boneheaded this is...
Here's a paper from 1962 discussing the stability of the Arctic circumpolar vortex: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1962)019<0159:OTSOIB>2.0.CO;2
It's the one I mentioned in a pervious post.
Here's the image you linked to:
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/files/2014/01/two_time_magazine_in_one_1-7-14-1-big.jpg
The left hand image says "Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitde polar winds - the so-called circumpolar vortex."
The right hand image says "But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the US even more likely. Right now much of the US is in the grop of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold extremly dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex - which can top 100 mph (161 k/h) - keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when these winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing artic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward..."
So, the 1962 paper says that the destablization and decay of the polar vortex is something that happens every year, and attributes the decay to warming.
The 1974 Time article suggests that the strengthening and expansion of the polar vortex MAY be as a result of global cooling.
The 2014 Time article suggests that the spectacular destabilization and decay of the polar vortex MAY have been as a result of global warming.
And somehow, inspite of the fact that if Cooling causes the expansion and strengthening of the polar then it is implied that warming will cause decay and collapse. enthusiasts such as yourself come to the mindnumbingly boneheaded conclusion that there is a contradiction between the two statements...
Photizo said:
You have it all wrong - the science, the history and the politics. The shaping of public opinion as far as the need to protect the environment began as early as Teddy Roosevelt (creating the national parks - protecting the space at least) and is loosely tied to labor movement of about the same time, insofar as the workplace often was health threat to workers (such as black lung from coal mining). After that there were folk musicians (Woodie Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Alan Lomax) who preserved these themes, as well as novelists like Steinbeck. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle exposed the filthy conditions of meat packing in that era, which created public uproar, and again it was Teddy Roosevelt who ordered an investigation leading to the the US Pure Food and Drug Act. These kinds of themes involving industrial harm to average people, were revived decades later by the Beatniks, and by the time they grew into Hippies they were taking these kinds of ideas to the street and making noise over the seriousness of air and water pollution (the infamous Love Canal was one of several biologically dead waterways loaded with contaminants).
Public awareness of global warming grew up like this. It was during the Hippie era that people began learning in school science classes about the greenhouse effect, after the 1957 discovery of anthopogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] in air and water made this a topic of classical earth sciences. How and why you keep insisting that these things never happened, why you keep pretending there was no historical precedent that led to the creation of NOAA and later the IPCC is pretty obvious. But don't expect folks to let you off the hook for it.
As you see the "oops we had it wrong" and "deliberate changes/omissions" and "rubes of science feeding" public information is all manufactured bullshit. It was in the days of Andrew Jackson that Fourier discovered the greenhouse effect. It explained the reason the glaciers had receded: heat was trapped by the atmosphere. By 1900 several scientists had searched for which gas (to include water vapor) was doing this. Their conclusions then, which are still valid today, were that CO[sub]2[/sub] was the primary gas capable of this. They found three reasons: (1) CO[sub]2[/sub] absorbs heat (2) CO[sub]2[/sub] exists in trace amounts, so it can vary by 100% or more without violating any laws (the sources that naturally create it can vary more that that), and (3) a doubling of atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] would raise surface temps by at least several degrees. It took about 150 years to get from Fourier's discovery to the creation of NOAA, or about 75 years after it was known that doubling the CO[sub]2[/sub] would alter the climate several degrees. There would not have been any public awareness of it at all if we did not have laws requiring children to go to school and learn science. But the data started appearing in US textbooks as early as the late 60s. It was not such a hot topic then because people were at the time more concerned about toxic effects of air and water pollution. It wasn't until after those were addressed through appropriate legislation that global warming was getting some coverage in the media. But during all of those years - since the 1957 erection of CO[sub]2[/sub] detection stations, scientists have been reporting the potential dangers of anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub], and at least a cursory discussion of that subject was found in high school books on Earth Science. It maybe that you never took such a course, and in fact the public at large was generally ignorant of what that science revealed because few of them took it and/or they took it but this issue didn't seem interesting or important to them. Or they/you slept through science classes.
But to go from a position of ignorance to one of pointing the finger and ridiculing experts over a Republican manufactured issue, perpetuated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Tea Baggers, Rick Perry etc. -- instead of cracking an old book yourself or researching the history I outlined online -- makes all of your posts political rant, not scientific in nature. And while you may feel bitter that those knuckleheads you follow were exposed by the dozen or so official investigations that followed, all of which cleared Michael Mann, all I can say is, sorry to bust your bubble, but unless you intend to change the headlines, you've been vicitimized by the Right Wing. That or it's wilfull contempt for science, possibly reflecting a problem you had in school, religious views or some related personal barrier. But don't be surprised by the feedback you're getting.
I read the "MAY" in both cases. That is why I said "floated"...in the sense that they're not really sure but that's what they interpret the data to to be POSSIBLY meaning. So, what do they do? They push the notion--in either case 74 or 14--as though what MAY be the case IS the case. That's the problem. That is the problem. You really have no idea whether what you think you know is the case. Chances are in 10--20--40 yrs. you (plural) will be totally convinced it's something else or it was much ado about nothing...you'll be busy with next scare that needs to herd the sheep into the shearing line. Knock yourselves out.
Sorry but you are wrong. What I pointed out are facts. You just can't deal with it. 'Science' is constantly reversing/altering itself, changing what 'reality' is etc. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE JUST THAT, human beings; not supermen... just blind animals trying to make sense of their environment and that with extremely limited means... extremely limited, got that?--especially given the immensity of that same environment wherein they find themselves. WHOLLY INCAPABLE of attaining to an accurate understanding of same. What might help would be a healthy dose of HUMILITY...but see?...it is patently obvious you people here are totally devoid of even a modicum of said virtue..
Photizo
You and facts were separated at birth, evidently. We just had the whole Arctic air mass dumped on us, caused by slowing jet stream and warmer air over the pole. Thanks to global warming, we might need to get used to this type of extraordinary variance from norm, Australia just set all time high temperature records(over 120 F). Denyers know nothing, they just do the bidding of the Koch brothers and the other oligarchs whose propaganda they have bought into, hook line and sinker.
Grumpy
You and facts were separated at birth, evidently. We just had the whole Arctic air mass dumped on us, caused by slowing jet stream and warmer air over the pole. Thanks to global warming, we might need to get used to this type of extraordinary variance from norm, Australia just set all time high temperature records(over 120 F). Denyers know nothing, they just do the bidding of the Koch brothers and the other oligarchs whose propaganda they have bought into, hook line and sinker.
Grumpy
Nice post. Should be part of your book. The historical perspective is always interesting and informative when you write about it. Thanks.
Just to illustrate how spectacularly boneheaded this is...
Here's a paper from 1962 discussing the stability of the Arctic circumpolar vortex: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1962)019<0159:OTSOIB>2.0.CO;2
It's the one I mentioned in a pervious post.
Here's the image you linked to:
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/files/2014/01/two_time_magazine_in_one_1-7-14-1-big.jpg
The left hand image says "Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitde polar winds - the so-called circumpolar vortex."
The right hand image says "But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the US even more likely. Right now much of the US is in the grop of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold extremly dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex - which can top 100 mph (161 k/h) - keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when these winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing artic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward..."
So, the 1962 paper says that the destablization and decay of the polar vortex is something that happens every year, and attributes the decay to warming.
The 1974 Time article suggests that the strengthening and expansion of the polar vortex MAY be as a result of global cooling.
The 2014 Time article suggests that the spectacular destabilization and decay of the polar vortex MAY have been as a result of global warming.
And somehow, inspite of the fact that if Cooling causes the expansion and strengthening of the polar then it is implied that warming will cause decay and collapse. enthusiasts such as yourself come to the mindnumbingly boneheaded conclusion that there is a contradiction between the two statements...
Thanks for ever being the warrior. You'll get a kick out of Al Rokers response to the 'extreme intellectual dishonesty' of Rush Limbaugh. The Rev showed us on Politics Nation today.
You wouldn't recognize a fact if it walked up and kicked you in the balls.
Al Roker's response. http://blog.chron.com/hottopics/201...-vortex-liberal-conspiracy-theory/#19480101=0
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I cannot believe the "cognitive dissonance" of the GW deniers.
This may hopefully be read by some "open minds" doubters and realize that
and if you want to see the effects in various parts of the world, have a little peek at this.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707.html
This may hopefully be read by some "open minds" doubters and realize that
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
and if you want to see the effects in various parts of the world, have a little peek at this.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707.html
You've copmpletly missed the point I was making haven't you? From where you're sitting you're struggling to make out the
The point I was making was this:
The image attempts to assert a contradiction.
It does so by implying that in 1974 the argument was "Global cooling is causing the polar vortex" and that in 2014 the argument is "Global warming is causing the polar vortex".
The first thing to understand is this: Neither of those claims are claims made by scientists advocating anthropogenic climate change.
The next thing to understand is that the claims made by the two articles are complamentary, not contradictory.
The 1974 article suggests that the strengthening of the polar vortex may be caused by global cooling.
The 2014 article suggests that the destabilization of the polar vortex may be caused by global warming.
BOTH STATEMEMENTS ARE POTENTIALLY TRUE!
The 2014 statement is implied by the 1974 statement.
The final thing to understand is this:
The decay of the polar vortex is a natural event.
It happens every year.
It is caused by seasonal, regional warming trends.
This is why we believe both the 1974 and 2014 statements to be true, because it matches the observations we make every year and matches the predictions made by fluid mechanics as we currently understand them.
I'm trying to figure who comprises the 3% of climate scientists [?] that don't agree with the literature? Maybe 'climate scientist' is a pretty loose term. Maybe they're the Koch brothers personal climate scientists? Or the oil industry climate scientists?
The oil industry intellectual dishonesty is bothersome to me since I worked in the oil industry for 40 years. It's bothersome to me but certainly expected. The only changes they'll make to operating philosophy result in an increased bottom line. Period. Unless they're forced to. Over my years of involvement they were forced to fix the egregious operational safety record the industry was sporting before OSHA decided to step in. Same for environmental regulation compliance. Since the industry was forced to comply they've made safety and environmental compliance company values. A real value rather than one based on lip service [except BP who is the lip service pariah of the industry]. So there's hope for forcing them to board the good ship 'Save our collective ass' in the future. Gonna have to make them. But they will comply. And probably in very constructive ways since saving our world would become a company value [you would hope and experience says so]. Gotta make them. One way this was accomplished, in CA, was voting on and passing the CARB legislation. Lots of money was spent on building units that can meet the CARB specifications.
So far it's a bunch of bullshit commercials on how they're the good buddy of the multitude of species under attack in the wild. Makes me want to kick some ass.
Thanks for your post.