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.
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.
What they discovered in the 1950's was that they couldn't use heat sensors for the missiles that were sensitive in the IR bands that CO2 absorbed. I don't imagine the missiles you worked on used IR sensors in those bands either.
Of course Arrhenius stated that Earth's temperature was proportional to CO2 levels in the atmosphere in 1896 but scientists didn't really start understanding what that meant until the mid to late 1950's. Gilbert Plass published several papers on the effects of CO2 in the 50's. From there it started building. In 1966 (I think) a presentation on the potential of CO2 to cause warming was made to Lyndon Johnson who mentioned it in an address to Congress. By the 1970's global warming from increasing CO2 was the dominant paradigm.
Scientists never predicted the Earth is flat. Anyone with a decent knowledge of geometry can show the Earth is round. Erastothenes calculated the diameter of the Earth 2300 years ago. Pythagorus is generally bel,ieved to be the first Greek to state the Earth is round. That was well before anything we recognize as science.
Really? It doesn't seem to be the case, at least according to this source : http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/. Are you saying NASA is part of a conspiracy?
> It is worth noting that the various regulations and "oh my god the nuclear" fears, along with the "oh my god someone might reprocess into plutonium or nuclear weapons so we ban half of it", has caused the above...
Not really. Nuclear was already expensive in the 50's and 60's, way before these things were a huge issue. In fact most of the time the people insisting on safety were the nuclear scientists themselves, not the 'eco warrior bogeyman' you've constructed in your mind. The reason was because the scientists were responsible and acknowledged the actual real threats posed by radioactive contamination and the relative ease by which unprotected nuclear reactors could leach radioactive material into the environment.
Is there a lot of unwarranted, irrational fear about nuclear power? Sure. I'm with you 100% on that. But that doesn't mean that nuclear reactors shouldn't be made safe! It's not just accidents either. What if someone crashes a jet into a power plant with the goal of making a large area radioactive and uninhabitable? US regulations require containment buildings to be resistant to bombs and plane impacts, for good reason.
Now as to what makes nuclear power expensive. There are three major issues. One is that the economics of nuclear power favors large, multi-gigawatt, one-off designs that have huge up-front costs that simple can't be made smaller by mass production methods (attempts at small modular reactors have failed and will always fail as the economics of those are even worse). Another issue is decommissioning. Nuclear decommissioning costs are MASSIVE, because you have to extremely carefully take the reactor apart over a period of years. The third major issue is the advanced level of technology required. Custom materials, custom manufacturing processes, labor-intensive fuel preparation, reactor maintenance, and inspection costs.
> It now take more than twice as long to build a new nuclear reactor as it did to invent the things in the first place, when we didn't know how to make them work. That is absurd, imagine if cars took a month to build, you'd be saying that they didn't make any sense either...
It actually makes perfect sense once you realize that the first generation of nuclear power plants were built recklessly and with insane design decisions that made them extremely unsafe and vulnerable to both accidents and terrorist attacks. Over time, we've realized the steps that need to be taken to build safe and secure nuclear sites and these add expense and time.
And as for proliferation fears, well you can blame that on the right wing politicians who insist on backwards arms control methods like total nuclear abstinence instead of rational procedures like international inspections regimes.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
The full-coverage satellite data show continued warming in the last 20 years. I don't know which data you are looking at, but of the 20 year period you are talking about, nine out of the ten warmest years are after 2005, and 2015 might set a new all time record. If it wasn't for the extreme outlier 1998, the warming in the last 20 years would have been nearly linear. Actually, one of the Anti-AGW propaganda tricks is to take an ok sounding period like 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, in which 1998 is close to the start. Until 2008, it was always "the last decade doesn't show warming", after that it was "the last 15 years", and now, since 2013 and thus more than 15 years since 1998 are over, it's obviously 20 years. But for some reason, 2013, 2014 and probably also 2015 were pretty hot years globally, and thus the graph, that looked so convincingly anti-warming in 2008 was mildly constant until 2013, but since then, even 1998 does no longer help the argument, as even the graphs that take 1998 as their starting point have a rising trend.
by far the cheapest way of dealing with it is to deal with it right now.
That's the thing though - it is being dealt with right now. Even if someone believes that mankind has had no significant influence on the climate in this really obviously warming interglacial period (many people are posting from locations that were buried under deep ice a few tens of thousands of years ago), most would agree that the move to renewables and cleaner emissions being mandated by a lot of governments is a good thing.
Where the major disagreement seems to arise is in how quickly we need to complete that move. As far as I can see by the end of this century fossil fuels will be largely a thing of the past in all of their forms - and that's perfectly acceptable. It's a trade off between the large amounts of economic damage - including to things like pension funds relied upon by grannies for their old age - that could be caused immediately versus a relatively minor change in a global climate that's seen gargantuan changes without any interference from humanity very recently in geological terms.
So basically everyone chill, no pun intended.
You recall one single "clickbait" style cover of TIME magazine designed to stir people up and start an argument. They justified it with something about "both sides of the story", where apparently on some issues nutcases get equal time to the rest of humanity.
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.
Well that there is just flat out a lie.
You can dig out the most recent IPCC report if you like. It contains the predictions from the previous IPCC report and compares them to what actually happened. And what happened is that the actual data lay comfortably within the error bars of the temperatures predicted by the models.
Since you're such a "skeptic", I assume you've actually looked at the IPCC report in order to read it rationally and with a clear head, so I don't need to point you to the specific graph.
So, carry on, I'd love to see you twist and turn in the face of indisputable evidence.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
CO2 has risen substantially in the last decade or two - with very little corresponding warming. ... so you are simply: wrong.
Last year was the hottest in recorded history
Also keep in mind: when you open the valve of your heating, it takes a few minutes until the radiator is hot, and it takes hours until your room is significantly warmer.
The same happens with CO2. The CO2 we produce today will show up on thermometers all over the world in a few years, not tomorrow.
the EVIDENCE is that CO2 rising does not lead to temperature rise, despite many previous predictions to the contrary.
There is no evidence like that. As a stone can not raise to earth orbit, but is firmly grasped by gravity, CO2 leads to increased temperatures. There is no doubt about that. No idea why you repeatedly write nonsense like this, are you payed by some american oil/denier lobby?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.