Slashdot Mirror
Once-Shrinking Greenland Glacier Is Now Growing, NASA Study Shows (nbcnews.com)
kenh shares a report from NBC News: A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds. The Jakobshavn (YA-cob-shawv-en) glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles (3 kilometers) and thinning nearly 130 feet (almost 40 meters) annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday's Nature Geoscience. Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary.
A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation -- a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific. The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago, study authors said. While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, said NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, a study co-author. Over the decades the water has been and will be warming from man-made climate change, he said, noting that about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation -- a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific. The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago, study authors said. While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, said NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, a study co-author. Over the decades the water has been and will be warming from man-made climate change, he said, noting that about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
I takes more faith to believe in Climate Change theories than to believe in God.
Area is one measure. Density is another we can't readily perform under the surface, hence the hollowed out Greenland and other glaciers, arctic ice melting unforseen from below. We can't stop it now, but we have to begin.
For some evidence of global warming. It's been decades now, and everything they've shown us as evidence has turned out not to be the case.
I wonder if in fifty years they'll be going on about global warming, even when it still isn't happening?
(YA-cobs-HA-ven)
Sig?
You mean the Jim Bridenstine led NASA?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/science/jim-bridenstine-nasa.html
Why do you always want to fight the badly needed population correction? Just let it happen. Look around. There are WAY too many Humans. This problem will solve itself.
Avenatti is going to jail (along with Jussie Smollett's lawyer, his co-conspirator). Global warming is turning around. Mueller report has nothing in it. ISIS is destroyed. Dems run a bunch of clowns in the primaries. Liberal media has completely self-destructed. And so on and so forth. If things go like this, Trump is getting a Reagan-style landslide in 2020.
Perhaps the Gulf current is slowing down because of the polar cap ice loss, restoring temporarily the cold climate in polar region? This could become an (dampened) oscillation, or a series of hickups. It would also mean that we would have severe weather systems in the lower latitudes on Atlantic during the lows of the stream strength, coincident with harsh winters in Europe and rebounds of polar ice. But, since we know that more warmth is getting into system, eventually the net effect will be on the loss of ice side.
Another aspect of land ice variation may be increased seismic activity, due to forces and movements changing direction. More wiggling allows easier overcoming of friction.
"A natural cyclical cooling" aka. winter.
Must! Save! The! Planet!
You could've just refuted OPs points on why consensus and science are polar opposites to one another, just like OP could've left out the appeal to authority and just made that point directly.
So I do it here:
Consensus is not science. Science is never settled. Experts are good and nice for science, and it is likely they are right on the next issues, but not certain. Politics is not science, either, so large scientific organisations, ever growing aggregates of consensus, old experts and politics, will only produce an ever shrinking amount of actual science.
For as long as humanity existed, science wasn't settled on anything, experts have been wrong on almost everything and hence all consensii that ever existed have been proven wrong years, decades or millenia later.
If your only argument is "consensus" and the agreement of measurements, your scientific theory is a sad mess, because your agreement of measurements just got BTFO by another set of glacier expansion data, just as the various mountains all across the world should have been devoid of snow on their summits by now but still aren't. Unless of course growing AND shrinking glaciers are confirmations of your theory. But then the theory is not a theory but a religion. As "man made global warming" has adherents who want to ban dissent, criminalize "climate change denial" with actual prison sentences, demand that everyone makes sacrifices everywhere, and proceed to ramble about things that are unknowable and cannot be understood by laymen anywhere everm, we have a few other components of "New Religious Movements" already.
I might be wrong, but so do you. Unless you accept that you could be wrong and all the experts could be wrong if a simple observation X and Y happened tomorrow, you are not scientific. And yes, glaciers growing is a pretty strong refute of what we ever heard about what Global Warming would bring. And if climate change is the new thing, we can just give up on the science part and start praying already because climate has and always will warm and cool. Climate will keep changing until the sun burns out. If that is "proof" of your theory, good luck, because now every single observation ever can prove your point. You might as well look at chicken bones and the 50th digit of a household digital thermometer to confirm your points.
In the seventies it was common knowledge, and agreed on consensus, that the Earth was experiencing a climatic cooling period. That is still the case today.
The problem is, between then and now, climate itself became a political baseball bat. Something that changes meaning with the whim of those who weild it. Used to beat those who disagree into submission. Feck global alarmist and their facist ways.
Want to save the planet? Get EVERYONE involved, not just people who will vote the way you think they should. Seperate climate and "inevitable doom" hyperbolic BS. Teach conservation and environmental impact of ALL actions, not just man made ones. Stop with the seas rising fifty feet with polar ice melting, wiping away half the planet.
Let people build atmospheric carbon scrubbers and sequesterers to give the world enough time to turn the corner.
STOP carbon credit systemic manipulation.
And finally, grow the feck up. Shut up and start leading the way. Stop arguing about it on the internet and wasting time, energy, and fossil fuels over conversations you will not win if you don't lead the way in real life!
Doesn't that sound normal that the glacier grows from Sept to March?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
*abundant, sorry, phone post.
Something that seems to prove their theory?
DEFINITIVELY AGW!
But, something like a growing glacier? Which contradicts it?
"A natural cycle."
It's a fucking religion at this point.
Just like being anti-Trump.
Most people don't dispute that climate is changing.
The problem is, the models for this shit are so shoddy and inflexible.
So when people point out the problems in the models, they get labeled a "climate denier".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chemtrails work.
All the knowledge of mankind at your fingertips and you write that? The willful ignorance of your post is truly astonishing.
I call bullshit on your argument. That's the same logical fault that is used by the anti-vax movement: because there is one "scientist" that published a link between autism and vaccination, the science is not settled. Let's just ignore that this "scientist" had his paper and approbation revoked for gross misconduct.
The question of "Is the human burning of fossil fuels affecting the world climate?" is settled. There is a small number of nay-Sayers, many with political and financial reasons, but that's completely normal. The on-going debate is only about the precise impact. Much of the projections in research papers is by nature conservative. Not in the political sense, but in the sense of "let's assume the unknown factors compensate as much as reasonable possible for humanities impact". Of course, media likes to quote the most dramatic projection instead, so for the layman it might look like drawing doomsday scenarios. A 50 feet raise of the ocean level doesn't sound that extreme, e.g. if you compare with https://xkcd.com/1225/ Not a scientific source and there is a ~10% difference in density between ice and water, but good enough.
Some of the big open questions are "Where is all the extra energy going that we do not see?" and "How does the raising ocean temperature affect the ocean and air circulation streams?". The former is difficult to answer because temperature monitoring for the world oceans is spotty at best. It's also an insanely large reservoir of storage capacity for heat, so small temperature changes reflect vast amounts of energy. The latter question is difficult to answer because there are a lot of small scale and large scale interactions all getting mixed up.
But with all those open questions, the data base is getting better every day and the quality of the models used is improving constantly as well. So far, the actual data has pretty consistently out-paced the conservative predictions for the temperature raise. That should be deeply troubling to everyone...
How can you question obvious things! When I was a kid I remember that snow piles at my front door ware above my head and in the last 20 years I have not seen so high anymore!
Presumptive faith though, not assumptive. There is at least some evidence to build the foundation of belief, with faith being the glue. In religion, the whole thing is made of glue.
Science is as much of a religion for most people as religion is...
Surely you donâ(TM)t understand every aspect of climate science in order to verify the findings, right? So you accept some stuff on faith.
Worst case I can get somebody who does know climate change to verify the research results because they are physical mesuralbe observable and verifieable. Come to think of it, science already does that, it's called peer review. Now will you please submit your evidence for the existence of god and hell and explain why only designated clergy and prophets have a direct line to god and why god is so obsessed with the way the general public lives their lives?
In the seventies it was common knowledge, and agreed on consensus, that the Earth was experiencing a climatic cooling period. That is still the case today.
Nope! That was a fruitcake idea held by a few nutballs back then, and it is the same now, except for trying to make their fruitcake out to be larger than it was.
Back in the Seventies, people believed in crystals and fad diets. People today believe those too.
Not so much the meaningful scientific consensus you want it to be.
Sorry. You're wasting your time believing in a fairy tale that you gut has misled you into believing. In reality, powerful corporations like Exxon and Du Pont were paying big money to buy out the truth and give themselves a few more years of ease.
Stop spreading lies, open your eyes, and learn the real truth. You are being subjected to the machinations of exploitative corporations who don't care what they do to you, or how you suffer. They don't beat you into submission, they slyly toxify your mind and convince you that their poisons are delicious.
They'd sell you young earth creationism and send you the bill.
Newsflash: Climate is more dynamic than you previously thought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKY5DzrcLI
gg
Scepticism is quite interesting too.
What an excellent question. Just a question, that honestly deserves an answer. Instead, you got a -1, because someone is angry that things might be improving (or, just simply staying the same) on this planet.
Some people are only happy if things go the way their chosen side wishes them to go -- even if it's to the detriment of society.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone who has been worrying about glaciers worried about herbicides instead?
STOP carbon credit systemic manipulation.
This. I had a lovely experience with a similar credit system but for water. The EPA made it too expensive to upgrade a waste processing facility and so it was cheaper for the company to buy "clean water credits" instead of actually fixing an actual problem with their waste processing plant because of what the EPA regulations. Why fix a problem when you can buy "clean" whatever EPA measures and say "Oh look see we are clean!".
I lost a lot of respect for the EPA after that experience. When they make it more difficult to upgrade a waste processing facility to reduce pollution and instead focus on empty credit systems that do nothing,
I recall a National Geographic article covering the massive volcanic eruptions in 1999 due to the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean. Maybe these eruptions have slowed down and the water is cooling off. It seems these pictures have been removed from the National Geographic website, I wonder why...
"Endeavour to persevere"
Are we sure its nothing stupid like its attached/anchored some way and is "shrinking"/"growing" with the tides?
God, climate change; it's all lies
"Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary." Could you put a timescale on that? After all, many scientists believe that the Earth is temporary.
That's bulshit man. There is truth behind antivaxer movement, that's why it is so impossible to suppress. The truth is that medical profession is corrupt by powerful interests of Big Pharma. And so it is obvious for any scientist that pro cases studies are very very biased.
Exactly same goes for the Climategate. Do you know that the Data, the planetary scale measures that feed all these fancy Climate models only look for extreme hot data points but disregard extreme low measures? Think about it.
The truth will come out. We already are seeing a starting Global Cooling that cannot be denied.
Not so. If you only look for extreme hot meausremensts and disregard extreme cold ones, like the climatologists now do, you add a lot of bias to your so called measurements.
Glaciers growing again?
Ocean cooler than predicted by a lot?
How can we possibly spin this news as bad... oh I've got it, claim that obviously that since the water temperature also lowered it must mean that water temperature and glacial retreat are strongly linked!
What's that you say the water would have to get warm again to cause a problem? Shh!!
Important life lesson for people: If someone claims everything is bad, they are often wrong about everything.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Let me see if I understand this correctly:
- shrinking glacier: inarguable proof that the globe is warming
- growing glacier: not proof that the globe is cooling because we believe it'll probably change in the future, sometime, anyway.
Is that about how it works?
-Styopa
Emailgate: your data is corrupt and has been demonstrated so many times.
When your consensus faux scientists alter historical records to create bs headlines to make every year the hottest ever (while simultaneously discussing the 15+ year pause in warming, somehow) then you are not discussing science. That is how politics works.
Every single climate disaster ever predicted by every one, be it Gore or a faux scientist has utterly failed to occur so far. Politics or religion, yes, but AGW as science? Absolutely not. After a 100% failure rate only the ignorant or religiously faithful could still believe.
It is a religion which is why your type uses denier as an insult. Deny is the opposite faith not science. Skeptic or scientist is the opposite of scientist.
Those of us who have been hearing this since 1995 have thirty years experience of seeing the climate change alarmists get it wrong, so please kids, forgive our skepticism.
I have a hard time taking you seriously when you think that 1995 was thirty years ago.
Climate cooling was taken seriously enough that I was taught it in school as part of official curriculum and we were taken on a field trip to the nearby science museum who had a huge multi room exhibit to teach the public about it.
You are likely too young to have personally experienced it. You can not gas light us older folks who were there and remember it into making global cooling hysteria go away as the main stream scientific consensus belief that it was.
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
It has blood on it!
ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander
Losing my religion
Sun researchers find strange eclipse reading
"YOU WANT US BACK IN THE STONE AGE!!!?!!!!?!"
"You are tring to take all our money and give it to Africa!!!!!!"
"You're trying to stop Africa becoming wealthy!!!!" (see how well your "ideas" mesh here...?)
"This is a left wing scam to create a NEW WORLD ORDER!!!!"
and so on and so forth, interminably and incessantly without any addition of the higher functions of a human brain.
You do not. Dare not. Care not.
And that the denier "models" are ignored when they fail their predictions, as if they never existed. Meanwhile Hansen's 1988 paper using an early 80s model was almost spot on in its predictions for the succeeding 20 odd years: if the model gave a climate sensitivity of 3.4C per doubling CO2e and the actual record over that time gave a climate sensitivity of 3.2C per doubling.
Pretty damn accurate.
Now, tell me ANY denier prediction that EVER came true. There isn't one.
Yet somehow you pretend that AGW is falsified if you have heard that the models failed form denier blogrolls (never having looked yourself) and that the opponents of it are correct, despite every single prediction having failed (which will never be reported on those denier blogrolls you frequent).
Well, this is certainly news.
So it would be incorrect to claim it is growing because you have just turned that claim into nonsense. No different than saying "the sun is rising" during the morning. What does the growth say about, say, climate? Well you have to look at where it has been historically. Which is a lot bigger. Denier idiots like yourself don't know or care, however.
Al said that all the poles would be melted and that we'd all be underwater by now! Glub Glub. What climate truth has he gotten right? Zzzzzip! So they were all lies then? Yep.
Here's a video from last year talking about what fraud NASA and NOAA do on the poles. So it's no surprise except to the self-proclaimed smart people here on Slashdot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK03WG4t30U
Expect more fake narrative, tho, because some people just want to believe in their fake climate religion!
About the same rate? OK, so what WAS the rate of replenishment? TFA never bothers to say. Why is our time being wasted with this zero-information tripe?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Nobody is angry, it's just that claims that are factually incorrect are not something to be promoted. Unless you're an idealogue and need that fake narrative pushed. Are you an idealogue, or do you just follow denier blogrolls?
Not so. If you only look for extreme hot meausremensts and disregard extreme cold ones, like the climatologists now do, you add a lot of bias to your so called measurements.
So we are talking about a global conspiracy of all climate scientists to convince humanity that the world is getting warmer? ... to what end?
We don't look only for extreme hot measurements, nor do we disregard extreme cold ones, only deniers ignore weather that does not fit their presumptions. This year was warmer than average. Even in the USA where it was colder than for many years, it was still warmer several years ago.
Dammit, I just used all of my mod points ... and a AC to boot.
Not merely nothingburger, IT DOES NOT EXIST. Data is not corrupt, BEST proved that.
Denier idiots all say he said that, but nothing of the sort happened.
Associated Press, 1989:
Title : "U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked"
- "A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."
- "The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown."
- "He said even the most conservative scientists already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change of about 3 degrees."
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0?fbclid=IwAR3crWlTmpR7EM5HVMq1u2a5grpjGjBenYYA0gy9g6SOpA7riAFnxwoYj8I
It's now been 30 yrs and NASA says the temp has only increased like .8 degrees.
Must! Save! The! Planet!
How is your home powered? How do you get to work? Do you use anything synthetic? How about that computer you are using right now? Where do you get your food? How is it brought to your town? Compost yourself please, its the only way.
All the GCMs that include ice dynamics for the poles do it and have done it. GISS. Go look at the website. Ice increases due to several things, such as breakup for sea ice, snow increase and even melting (seen butter melt?). They all show that the ice will wax and wane. Every. Single One. Go to the GISS page and look.
Oh, and since you want to be an ignorant asshole about it, how about you proving the claim that NO model predicts it happening. Every single one you'll need to post and every single model run. Otherwise the claim fails to a black swan fallacy, shithead.
The claim was made out of the arsehole since that is where the head of deniers resides permanently. It was claimed merely out of belief that it must be so because the faith requires that the AGW science be utterly wrong, otherwise the faith in the capitalist system will be damaged, and that is an anathema to fuckwits like you.
1988 James Hansen New York will be Under Water in 20-30 years
https://www.salon.com/2001/10/...
1989 UN we have 12 years to save the planet
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c37...
1989 New York Times NOAA (No warming trend over the past 100 years )
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/0...
2000 Snowfalls are a thing of the past
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp...
2005 UN we will have 50 million climate refugees by 2010
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
2009 James Hansen, Obama Has 4 years to save the planet
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
2018 UN Only 12 years left to save the planet
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07...
2019 Greenland Glacier Reverses Decline.
Sadly you wasted them, because the AC was an idiot.
He goes through all this trouble of saying that consensus is not science, while using a single data point in a population to refute the whole. You know what's worse than taking something for granted simply because there's consensus? Assuming the consensus is wrong because you are woefully ignorant.
Well, it said that one glacier out of the tens of thousands measured grew instead of shrunk. But ya, I can see how a complete fucking moron would interpret that as a reversal of the trend. Carry on, soldier. Keep fighting that good fight.
When science runs counter to their personal bullshit, they scream that it is a conspiracy. When science temporarily confirms their own bias, then they scream "I told you so!"
Honestly, we should probably force deniers and anti-science types onto a reservation. It's really for their own good.
All in good time. For now, having too much fun watching snowflakes melt.
Weird that global temps have coincidentally also gone down the last 2 years(fairly under reported oddly enough). Will be fun to see where we are at in another decade.
If there's one thing about fanatics, the vast majority are loathsome no matter what they are fanatical about. Fanatics and believers are the opposite of rational people. They make up their mind and then behave the exact same way. The problem with the "Don't bother me with anything that might show my beliefs are incorrect!" attitude is often even the *best* scientific beliefs have been wrong.
Worse, the tactics of fanatics are often harmful for actually dealing with the problems fanatics are fanatical about.
Here's a few examples:
Nukes are bad! Nuclear power is bad! NO MORE NUKES. So guess what? We end up using the old nuclear power plants for longer when provably safer ones are available. Net effect - LESS SAFETY!
Plastics bad, plastics bad - NO MORE PLASTICS! - So some try to ban all plastics, except there are some places where plastics make lots of sense. Net effect, plenty of people I know find the recycling rules confusing and don't recycle much at all. Here's a concrete example - Often the recycling number on plastics here in the U.S. are freaking tiny. They can be damn hard to read. Rather than screaming at people for not recycling, it would be way better to get companies to print the recycling number way bigger so it was easier to read!
Stop global warming! Ban fossil fuels! Won't happen anytime soon. Interestingly enough, many of the climate change fanatics are the same fanatics who raved about nuclear power. So we ended up building MORE FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS! GOOD JOB!
In contrast, non-fanatics can have rational discussions and make real plans about ways to address things that have a way better chance of having a concrete effect on improving the situation. It's much easier to reduce greenhouse gases if there's already a pathway to a solution that the public has come to understand (and not fear) and supports.
There's a pile of things we could address if only those having tantrums would behave like rational adults. I'm strongly convinced that most people don't want to turn the planet into a total hell hole. The best way to get people to do a lot of something is to introduce it rationally.
Many articles speak of glaciers melting at bottom. Some have cavities over 100 meters wide due to ice melting & water out flows. No article I have read explains how warming above would cause melting below, nor mention effects of thermal conduction from hot planet core to surface.
Could movements of magma be causing glacier advances & retreats? Have changes of mountain interior temperatures been monitored and trended per glacier changes?
So there is that........
Relying on consenses is flawed of course. But relying on politics is even more amazingly flawed. If someone does not know the science and they can't crunch the numbers themselves then they are much better off figuring out what most of the scientists think than they are by asking politicians.
I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X rays, I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am?
Must be a conspiracy on truth.
"that doesn't magically solve other environmental problems like air and water quality, pollution disposal, habitat loss, and species extinction": If we discover that global warming is predominately a natural thing, rather than a man-made thing, that could well *help* solve these other problems, in the following two ways.
First, if global warming is natural, then it might be a random (or even cyclic) effect. In either of these is true, then warming is not with us forever. Many would consider that to be good.
Second, if it's natural, then perhaps we should stop trying to solve it, because our solutions--which by hypothesis are not based on the real cause--won't help. And we can turn our time, effort and money to solving problems that we actually are causing, and which we can solve.
For example, suppose coral bleaching--to the extent that it's worse now than it once was--might be due to any number of other human causes: over fishing, pollution from land sources, pollution from ships and boats, damage by tourists (touching coral, using harmful sun screen, dragging anchors), and so forth.
Similarly for habitat loss, which IMHO surely has much more to do with farming, logging, mining etc. than with warming. All these are things that we can (if we have the will, and if all our effort isn't going to combating something else) fix.
My sense is that there has been a huge amount of progress in the last half century (yes, I'm older than that) in addressing pollution: air pollution from automobiles (leaving out VW-gate...), air pollution from steel mills, water pollution in the Great Lakes (I grew up near Lake Michigan), and in many other areas. We can continue to work on eliminating such sources of pollution, or we can try to address global warming; we'll have less success if we try to do both. (You'll notice I'm not treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.)
god damn you are a fucking retard
Consensus is not science. Science is never settled.
On the other hand, it's pretty well accepted that the Earth goes around the Sun now.
And it's unlikely to need revisiting.
Similarly, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and so that increasing the concentration of it will increase the greenhouse effect.
It's not rocket science. The problem is only that the fossil fuel industry has put a lot of PR money into establishing misinformation about this.
In the seventies it was common knowledge, and agreed on consensus, that the Earth was experiencing a climatic cooling period.
Here we have an example of complete bullshit.
In 2008, Petersen et al. published a comprehensive literature review of scholarly papers on that had an opinion on the subject: THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
From the abstract:
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
This figure from the paper shows that even then, the papers predicting warming dominated.
But in the denialosphere, this is still a much repeated lie.
Stop it.
The problem is, between then and now, climate itself became a political baseball bat.
Nope. The problem is that if fossil fuels are reduced a lot of people who are very rich now will earn less. And they can pay PR groups to stop that happening.
Something that changes meaning with the whim of those who weild it. Used to beat those who disagree into submission.
...okay, I'm going in ...
How has the meaning of climate been used to beat people who disagree, and who are some people who've been beated by the meaning of climate becasue they disagree?
Feck global alarmist and their facist ways.
It's just science, mate.
No, you're wrong. If you were old enough to read the newspaper back in those days (I am), then you'll recall that the GP is telling the truth. That's not to dispute your claim of what was in scholarly papers, it certainly wasn't reported that way.
Just another day in Paradise
Here ya go... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just another day in Paradise
You: "It's the climate, not the weather!!"
You after every thunderstorm, tornado, hurricane, and earthquake: "LOOK WHAT YOU DID!!"
Read The New Green Deal.
It's socialist and racial justice extremism Trojan horsed in ostensible climate change panic. This is what the fear mongering is actually about.
"The world is going to end in 12 years! Do as I say, pay black people reparations, destroy the banking, cattle, and energy industries, and cede control of your health and safety to authoritarian leftist government control, or you're gonna dieeeee!!!"
Maybe people who are concerned about the climate changing shouldn't have used glaciers shrinking as an example of climate change. Now, morons can easily shoot down claims of climate change.
People on both sides are too stupid to tolerate. *sigh*
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
No, you're wrong. If you were old enough to read the newspaper back in those days (I am), then you'll recall that the GP is telling the truth. That's not to dispute your claim of what was in scholarly papers, it certainly wasn't reported that way.
The GGP said In the seventies it was common knowledge, and agreed on consensus, that the Earth was experiencing a climatic cooling period..
That is not the truth.
You're correct that there was some reporting to the contrary in the press, but that doesn't make the GGP true.
Since action has been delayed for 40 years, action now has to reduce emissions to where they should be, and also reduce emissions additionally by the amount that has been released since then.
It's much more expensive because of that.
So the truth is that there has been insufficient awareness of how much panic there should be.
So we are talking about a global conspiracy of all climate scientists to convince humanity that the world is getting warmer? ... to what end?
So now we've gone from the fake-but-marginally-believable 97%, to a mind-boggling "all"?
Let me ask you this: What, exactly, do 97% (or "all") of climate scientists agree on?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Quick! Bring out the flame throwers!
We have to maintain our funding stream!