Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study: Man-Made Global Warming First Became Evident In the Mid 20th Century

Posted by samzenpus on from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

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.

5 of 411 comments (clear)

  1. We've always be slow... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:We've always be slow... by kandresen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It was not simply washing the hands, but washing the hands with a chlorinated solution. I heard multiple alternative versions over the years - some wanting to use it to state the new theory did not get accepted until the old doctors died out, and so on. Others pointing to the scientific process - which is probably a more correct reason for the delay...: The 1st "theory" was that the chlorinated solution scared the evil spirits so the spirit would not jump from the previous patient to the next.... which was of course rejected flat by the lion share of the established doctors. The theory had to go through a large process to say why washing the hands with a chlorinated solution in a way doctors accepted, and by then some had already completely rejected the source due to the original reference to the supernatural cause...

  2. Nobody mentioned it to me. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  3. Re:there is no by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The ocean has continued to rise in the meantime at the same rate it has since 1650, about 3mm per year. It obviously wasn't caused by anthropogenic CO2 before 1950, so why would a continuation of the same effect be attributed to it after?

  4. Re:That may or may not be true... by tonywestonuk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The majority of people, are like this guy. He makes a very good point. "The only real solution is going to be figuring out how to provide power cleanly for less money than doing it dirty." In the UK, the governments are slashing funding for students. Research into modern nuclear is almost non existence and we have to go to the french to get them to build us a nuke. The figuring out has been outsourced.... it is gutting. We need a manhattan like project to create clean nuclear power. And we need it now, and for the same reasons - the threat of being wiped out by a second party. Its not germany or russia, this time its mother earth who has the finger on the button, and has been warning us to stop fucking with her for the last 50 years.