Slashdot Mirror
Study: Man-Made Global Warming First Became Evident In the Mid 20th Century
TapeCutter writes: In 1958 the US National Academies of Science (NAS) warned the US government that they had detected a robust Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) signal, they have not changed their mind on that claim for 57 years. Like the modern day Al Gore, Frank Capra publicized the possible effects in a popular documentary (video). Today we have news of a study from Melbourne University claiming the effects of AGW first became evident in the mid 20th century. In other words, the NAS could not have picked up the signal much earlier than they actually did. The fact that the last serious scientific objection to AGW (as a theory) was overcome in the mid 20th century by improving spectrometers in heat seeking missile was a remarkable coincidence, NAS took full advantage of that opportunity.
agw
the models are changed everytime they dont fit the narrative.
"The last serious ... objection was overcome"
Here is how to end all arguments. It does not matter the details. Pollution sucks. That is it. Do not bother with 'it will be warmer or colder or whatever'. Pollution is not good for us. Do not mess with other arguments. Someone who argues for it is arguing that pollution is OK. It is not. Give a hoot dont pollute. It is simple and old and works.
...they have not changed their mind...
On top of which, Slashdot automatically added a fucking space before the letter "d" when I tried to put the emphasis (bold and italic) on that letter only. You guys can't even write properly, you can't code properly either (the "options" window has been broken for months now), so stop trying to correct what we write on top of that.
I can't wait to see headlines in major newspapers and websites in a few decades:
"Youtoobz geealty of copirite infridgiment"
We did nothing until the fwuakin 20th century
...but I'm still not going to turn off my AC, stop driving my truck, or move into a smaller house.
The only real solution is going to be figuring out how to provide power cleanly for less money than doing it dirty.
Anything else is just an illusion, it won't be used by enough people to matter. You need to provide people a reason to change, and telling them to pay more money to save planet Earth isn't going to be it.
I'm all for clean power, to a point... but when it is less reliable and costs more money than the existing options, you just aren't going to get anywhere.
http://www.uigi.com/Temperature_swings_11000_yrs.jpg
Still cold compared to roman era.
http://matadorco2.com/wp-content/uploads/co2_enrichment_chart3.jpg
Plants NEED CO2 to grow
The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere causes an effect immediately.
The only question remaining is how sensitive your tools are.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands.
The human capacity for self-delusion never fails to amaze....
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
They might be able to pick up a change in temperature, but there is no possible way they could have identified the source. That is not something their instruments measure. This entire claim is a lie pushed by people who have no actual evidence to back up their claims that CO2 is responsible for global warming, because that is something it simply cannot do. The heat trapping abilities of were CO2 maximized at a far lower concentration than we have now. Like the glass in a greenhouse, making the trapping layer thicker simply does not make a difference. It's just not how it works.
The 1.18 minute video doesn't mention this. "Even now, man may be unwittingly changing the world's climate..." isn't even close.
I realize Slashdot summaries are just lifted verbatim from the linked article, so - was the original article written by an eight year old? The grammar and sentence construction are so awful that I refuse to read the thing on principle.
#DeleteChrome
The world is due for a catastrophe. For humans, we have too many poor. For the rest, they can evolve. All that matters now is a well furnished wallet to stay above it all.
We must act now.
The fact that the last serious scientific objection to AGW (as a theory) was overcome in the mid 20th century by improving spectrometers in heat seeking missile was a remarkable coincidence, NAS took full advantage of that opportunity.
Nobody mentioned it to me.
And I was working from the mid '60s through the early '70s in the "Infrared and Optics" lab that did the guidance systems for the BOMARK and Sidewinder, processed multispectral (including several infrared bands) aircraft and spacecraft data (from the ERTS - later renamed LandSat - and Skylab scanners), and much of the industrial-scale processing as well as the development of the equipment. The missile stuff was classified and before I joined, but the multispectral stuff was not, and was contemporary (as was the synthetic aperture radar in the other lab I worked for at the start of that period).
I did some of the software that processed that data, some of the running of the mainframes in question, maintained and augmented its OS and libraries on one of them, and, though a lowly undergrad techie at the time, talked with the researchers a lot. Some of them loved to tell me what they were up to and bounce ideas off me for my comments and opinions on them.
So I find it strange that, if they (or anybody in their field) had found a "strong" or "definitive" signal for AGW, using equipment derived from their work, they wouldn't, at least, have been talking about it a bunch, including with me, while celebrating and/or trying to get another grant out of it (and seeing if I could come up with a way to process the data to detect or falsify the signal).
As I recall, the dominant paradigm at the time was that the interglacial was ending and we were about to crash into the next ice age (or the next piece of the current one). But while that was discussed on campus it wasn't mentioned at this remote-sensing lab, either.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Silly old science requires new predictions, which is why we had to invent "science", where a "prediction" about the past becomes new evidence.
In case you don't get the subtlety, team circlejerk just added a new technique. Old members of the team have been busy editing the "raw" temperature data to make the past cooler and the present warmer. New members of the team are now saying that the trends in this fictional data (which was only recently concocted) could not have been seen until recently.
Ta da! "Science"!
See that "Preview" button?
graph
This graph shows all the predicted models versus observations. If you look you will see not a SINGLE model is even close. Beck_Nerd tells you they have been quite accurate, he hopes you believe him and don't look for yourself. The actual reality is they are 100% wrong, every single time.
Its so completely true and unarguable, yet they can't seem to show it with facts. Funny how that is and how many times they have "manipulated data" to match their conclusions instead of modifying their theories to match actual observations. If AGW is real, it will be sad because people who look into the claims can only see the pack of lies and have to assume it is a hoax because that is the only conclusion you can make if you honestly look at what both sides present.
NoScript says there is a potential XSS attack there. That's really unusual. Usually all it does it block JS, so I'm not dropping anything to look at that. I don't think yimg is sketchy; but maybe they need to fix their shit, or maybe *you* are trying to pull something. I don't have this problem with any other major image hosting site. Your URL looks weird, with some junk and another URL in it. Figuring those thigns out is not my specific area of expertise, so I don't care to analyze it any further.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Give a hoot dont pollute. It is simple and old and works.
Here's the problem with your brilliant "argument".
CO2 is not pollution by any means. For instance, if you asked most people "would pollution cause harm to plants", they would say "yes, of course".
But plants aren't harmed by CO2 - it's what they SUBSIST on.
The global warming cult has come along and claimed that CO2 is pollution, the only measurement being a predicted rise in temperature - but over the decades we have seen that is an outright lie. Temperatures have not tracked AT ALL with measured increased in human CO2 output. Historical temperature swings similarly show no correlation to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
So then, by what measure do you define CO2 as pollution? Because I very much agree with you; we must eliminate pollution as much as possible. But the mindless rush to attack CO2 has had the opposite effect; it has shadowed efforts to get rid of REAL pollution. That is the real effect that you and people like you are having with your current global CO2 snipe hunt.
You see, unlike every single one of you AGW fuckers, I actually care about the environment, and do I want I can to have real impact for the better.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Exactly. The Republicans are doing this because they hate us and want us to die.
But all evidence points towards AGW
Sigh. No, it does not, and has not for years.
All of the models are wildly wrong in predicting climate, so the "evidence" is pointing against any of the alarmist models you are peddling being correct.
CO2 has risen substantially in the last decade or two - with very little corresponding warming. There are a lot of theroes and hand-waving why, but in the end the EVIDENCE is that CO2 rising does not lead to temperature rise, despite many previous predictions to the contrary.
Previously we were all told Global Warming would bring more extreme storms, but the extremity of storms has remained slightly below average in recent years.
When will you zealots wake up to what real science (and real, vs. massaged, data) has been trying to tell you? You can go peddle e-meters or find some other gullible idiots to scam. At least then you wouldn't be screwing over the Earth with your crackpot religion.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There are alternatives to fossil fuels that are frowned upon by various groups: nuclear, wind, solar with battery backup, and hydroelectric all work to supply electricity. These need to become the vast majority of what our power plants are based on, with gas generators for somewhat quick ramp up when additional power is needed. Another issue that I wish to make is that no one knows if long term climate warming is all bad. We won't know for sure until it happens and computer models are adjusted on an ongoing basis for better accuracy. Sure, agricultural will shift, ocean front property will move inland and unknowns will occur. I suspect that some venture capitalist groups will be eager to profit off of the new industries that pop up to help address the ongoing changes. I just hope they don't make matters worse..
" If the world is warmer, we will still eat." take that argument to places where water is scarce - look beyond your own local bubble
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
... but for the fact that, each and any and every time AGW is mentioned on Slashdot, we have a majority of comment posters either flat-out denying AGW or engaging into a shouting-and-flaming war. There seems to be no other subject polarizing the /. public as strongly as AGW. Why is that ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Seems like CO2 IS a pollutant.
River runoff having too much fertiliser in it because a farm overused it is pollution.
Pollution is not a set list of things, it's an unwelcome side effect that results from a process and therefore burning fossil fuels the CO2 is a pollutant.
STOP BEGIN FRIGGING IGNORANT.
The title should be: 'man-made global warming first shilled in mid 20th century'. Wake up cowple! Four simultaneous 24-cow barns within a single rotation of the earth! You're all a bunch of cows! Moooooooooo! Moo says the cow!
Which Is More Likely? (A conspiracy of millions, or oil companies doing what they do?)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
for all you tl:dr out there here:
Interestingly, our models showed that the emergence of a human fingerprint on precipitation extremes has not happened yet.
So they even say straight out that their models are junk and then they reproduce a model which all you AGW bandwagoners jump right on.
pfft. Try reading, it works.
Back in the 60/70s there was fear of global cooling, so saying a group claimed warming since 58 is a stupid thing to claim. Or you could say after 60 years that have been no difference. But since they can't prove it with science, they just have to make stuff up to convince the many low IQ people.
Wow, I was worried we might not get our daily Climate Change (TM) propaganda article! What would we do without Slashdot ramming leftist pseudoscience down our throats?
The ocean has continued to rise in the meantime at the same rate it has since 1650, about 3mm per year.
Wrong, on at least two counts.
First, the oldest ocean height measurement started in 1700 in Amsterdam, and it recorded no change until 1819 (if 1820 had been picked, then it would have fallen). Second, after 1819, the rise at Amsterdam was less than 1mm per year until 1900.
Second, using more recent measurements, we're told that "For the period between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels are estimated to have risen a total of 195 mm, and 1.7 mm ± 0.3 mm per year, with a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm per year per year." Perhaps your 3mm per year is for the accelerated rate, which corresponds to the end of that period.
There are 5 major sources of global temperature data which are most often referred to. Three of them are estimates of surface temperature, from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), HadCRU (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.), and NCDC (National Climate Data Center). The other two are estimates of lower-troposphere temperature, from RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and UAH (Univ. of Alabama at Huntsville). All are anomaly data, i.e., the difference between temperature at a given time and that during a baseline period. They tend not to be on the same baseline; for GISS the baseline is 1951 to 1980, for HadCRU it’s 1961 to 1990, for NCDC it’s the 20th century, and for satellite data the baseline is 1979 to 1999. Since they use different baselines, they’re on a different scale, i.e., each has its own zero point for temperature. To compare them, we need to use the same zero point for all.
I didn't realize that Celsius is a flexible scale. Turns out that zero for temperature, changes based on the location on earth and who is producing the data. There are baselines and anomalies that must be manipulated, indexed and massaged before it can be released for general consumption. Note that all the data sets are comprised of estimates of surface and air data. A synonym for estimate is "guess". Berkeley has datasets but only release the ones that they have manipulated. Why can the public not have access to the raw data? Probably for the same reason that Hillary hides her email.
If you want people to accept AGW, make the data available, straight from the sensors and thermometers. Until then, it looks like a scam to extract more money from the masses. Fuel in CA is $1 a gallon more than the rest of the country, thanks to cap and trade. Cap and trade is merely a scheme to remove more money from the working man's wallet and put it in the coffers for big business and government. When traffic lights are synchronized, and the US gets serious about public transportation, then I will believe that we have a carbon problem and that the government is actively doing something to reduce it.
FYI, I drive electric cars and have solar panels. It makes good economic sense. It also helps insulate me from the idiots who keep raising the costs of living.
... which is why the alarmist scammers renamed it 'climate change', which could mean it's getting COLDER, even though EVERY time they use the term 'climate change', they mean 'catastrophic man-made global warming'.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
Keeling just started measurements in 1958! Explorer 1 was launched in 1958 for the Van-Allen radiation belt. Remember the 60's movie 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea'? Oh yeah, the Van-Allen belt has "caught fire" and incinerating Earth!
The National Academies of Science is a Civil War Institution; it was the National Research Council established by Eisenhower in 1956.
Frank Capra was playing up, for bucks, the "Red Scare" period of national paranoia of the 1950's.
The press about the paper from Auz is Bogus and the paper itself is Political Propaganda, not science, and no better than nonsense.
Some of the places where 'water is scarce' are places where people want to live in traditional suburban tract housing with green lawns that they mow weekly, because television and modern culture tells them that is the way they have to live. These are also places where there are vast tracts of what was desert before but by piping all the water up and onto the land they have become major food producing areas.
The place where I live in the middle of the continent is very capable of growing things like tomatos and fruit, but because the scale-of-economy favors these places were deserts are turned into cropland, we're mostly growing corn to turn into alcohol for fuel because the government mandates that gas have alcohol in it.
It's a big fucked up mess and central to that is always 'big government' or 'big business' (am I being redundant?) redefining the rules and changing our practices.
The US military is very good at developing new technologies using tens of thousands of people and keeping them secret for decades. Look at the Manhattan Project, stealth aircraft, etc. They do it through compartmentalization. Nobody knows the big picture except the people at the top.
An analysis of the U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) shows that only about 8%-1% (depending on the stage of processing) of the data survives in the climate record as unaltered/estimated data.
Of course the Kool Aid crown will runaway at the mention of WUWT.
Give me a break. In the same time frame there were articles and scares about the coming ice age that were every bit as credible. If we had listened to them with the same attitude we would now we'd have government-required carbon dioxide emitters by the thousands across the entire country, and we'd have spent hundreds of billions to do it - and the evidence of warming would be touted as evidence that "government works." You know what the right thing to do most of the time is? NOTHING! The vast majority of the time the right solution to any problem you care to name is "ignore it" because it will either solve itself or prove it was never a problem in the first place. Not every damn activist venting his spleen is a legitimate call to mobilize the entire world to spend trillions. The money wasted is real, it has to be paid back and it will be sooner or later, one way or another. And nor is money the only cost to reacting like this all the time, it is also costing our freedom, huge chunks of it at a time now. Christ, will everyone just take a damn Prozac and shut up for a while?!
I firmly deny it's MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.
Most of the hot air on the planet comes from WOMEN.
Therefore they don't accept it and never will.
See subject & "read em' & weep" Dave420 http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> How'd they taste, Dave420? Flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat", & washed down with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down?? LMAO @ U, fool... apk
See subject & "read em' & weep" Dave420 http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* "EATING YOUR WORDS" != GOOD NUTRITION fool!
APK
P.S.=> How'd they taste, Dave420? Flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat", & washed down with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down?? LMAO @ U, fool... apk
It's hardly surprising to see the progressive paint all rural republicans as stupid and anti-science. The truth is, the GOP just wants to stop this from becoming a manhattan project-sized solyndra.
And, for the most part, they've done it. The global agreements are signed and in place, MIT has an emergency temperature reduction plan designed, and the NAS / IPCC have agreed that up to 50% of the projected temperature increases are completely natural in origin anyway. None of this would have happened without aggressive oversight.
It's worth mentioning that the goal of a 2 C limit is relative to the pre-industrial average, which starts at 1750, before the United States Constitution existed.
It's so important that people recognize the progressive democrat movement for what it is -- founded circa 1912, it's an emotion reasoned, elite over herd, control structure intended to compete with communism and christianity. It's really just another religion.
A lot of people would like to transition to a objective, issue tracked, reason and science based federal government that prioritizes critical issues and solves them, using modern management methods like oversight, verification and validation.
Admittedly, people like Ted Cruz, with his grandstanding and shutdown poison pills, make the GOP a controversial brand to support.
Simply hiding fraud, waste, and abuse on the revenue side, in the IRS Tax Code, isn't a valid solution. Better to run through all 17 executive cabinets and completely reform, mostly to oversight, standards, and V&V contracting.
global warming and sea levels are rising -- I think we need to look at where we are constantly building concrete and pavement structures that does not allow rain water to be absorbed. Instead we are building surfaces that exceed 200+ degree and that divert water to run off faster to streams that run into the ocean. California is sinking ( http://www.livescience.com/519... ) because of less ground water. If we can build water collection areas we can reverse the rising sea levels and address the hotter water going into our oceans. Just think, if a building has been around for 50 years then the water that would normally be absorbed into the ground has had to be diverted for entire existence of the building (50 years at 20 inches of water per year comes up to 100 inches of water that has to go somewhere) now lets try to imaging over four million km of pavement in the US alone (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2085.html ).
CO2 is also an insulator in the environment. No one knows if the insulation effect or the greenhouse effect will be stronger or if they balance themselves out.
"There is also a possibility that adding more water vapor to the atmosphere could produce a negative feedback effect. This could happen if more water vapor leads to more cloud formation. Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth’s surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone – it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one. Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research."
Source: http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
This has been run all over Reddit and elsewhere and I will say here what I said (and got banned for) on Reddit. Ask any climatologist that doesn't have an agenda and they will all tell you the same thing: there IS NOT ENOUGH DATA to prove GW one way or the other. And certainly not in the mid-20th c. Weather data has only been consistently kept since about 1880 or so. That's 70 years to 1950. When you measure climate in CENTURIES, 3/4 of one century isn't enough data.
I'm certainly not a 'denier', but I'm also not a fear-monger either. I worked with NOAA and the NWS for 5 years managed HPC for them and managing the 150+ Level 2 NWS radar site feeds, and every one of the climatologists/meteorologists there said precisely what I'm saying. We don't have enough data. That doesn't mean it's not happening, but it also doesn't mean it is.
I'm all for hedging bets and working to clean up emissions and everything else, but the bloody fear mongering has GOT. TO. STOP. Nothing like Democrats and Liberals to use those kinds of tactics to squeeze more money out of taxpayers to hand over to their cronies as payback for getting them elected. Solyndra anyone?
Another Ice Age?
Monday, June 24, 1974 TIME magazine
Charlton Heston made an independent discovery of climate change in 1973.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
The "scientific method" has a glaring error in it!
The method taught is to think up a theory and then find evidence to support it. Then others look for evidence to refute it.
Way to encourage fake data!
Any Engineer (or Investigator) knows that you need to collect the evidence -first-. While trying you best to pretend that you have no theories yet, even to yourself.
Only after you have done your best to collect -all- of the evidence, as far as practical, do you begin making theories.
But that does not always make an exciting publication... or good grant money. 8-)