Global warming denialists favorite decade? The 70s!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

This is a video clip from "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" puts to rest one of the canards by global warming deniers: that in the 1970s, scientists predicted a global ice age, and the idea of human based climate change due to increased levels of CO2, well that was a relatively recent idea hawked by Al Gore. As you will see, all of this is utter hogwash. Considering that key committees in the House of Representatives will likely be chaired by AGW denialists, the stakes in the misinformation game by the Right couldn't be higher. I think this is a critical step by scientists, and long overdue!

Popular Mechanics - 1953 / Dr. Gilbert Plass of John Hopkins University: article on CO2 causing global temperature increases.


Bell Telephone Science documentary (directed by Frank Capra) showing ramifications of global warming due to human caused CO2 increases.


President Johnson's scientific advisory report warned of significant temperature increases by the year 2000 due to CO2.




Today in an unprecedented move the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, "plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution. The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in Tuesday's election."


Lord Christopher Monckton of Great Britain, global warming denialist extraordinaire.

John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, will be assembling what's called a "fast response" team to rebut denialists. In May of this year, Abraham posted an extensive rebuttal to Lord Monckton's anti-global warming lectures, given around the world (an anti-version of Al Gore, so to speak). Lord Monckton has appeared on Fox News and Glenn Beck's evening show.

Abraham's rebuttal is lucid and compelling and shows in many instances Lord Monckton is outright misrepresenting information on many topics that are favorites to global denialists, including shrinking glacial ice sheets, rising water levels, are polar bear populations decreasing, the Medieval Warming period, Co2 levels, is Solar variance to blame for recent warming etc.

Comments

Re: Been here

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Your included pictures don't debunk the embedded video at ALL! Did you watch it?

Re: Been here

[telemann.livejournal.com]

No, he never reads posts. I think he just sees who writes a post, reads the first sentence, then types furiously. No thoughtful interaction at all, ever.

Re: Been here

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Once again you are exposed as a liar.

Re: Been here

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Not at all. You're proving it now.

You're hands are soaking in it, Madge.

Re: Been here

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

I'm sure they don't debunk peanut butter and jelly, either.

Re: Been here

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

What a coincidence! Your replies were just as relevant to peanut butter and jelly as they were to the original post!

Re: Been here

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

What a surprise! Your inability to see that my reply neatly debunks one of Telemann's often claimed falsehoods, namely: "puts to rest one of the canards by global warming deniers: that in the 1970s, scientists predicted a global ice age" is par for the course.

Re: Been here

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

And of course your post did not demonstrate "what scientists predicted", or what the scientific consensus was, during the 70's.

Your selected images were just demonstrated what COMMON MEDIA reflected of the scientific conversation.

It's just laughable, because the OP's clip addressed that point exactly, in fact using many of the same pictures you used.

Facts? You don't need facts, you have hyperbole!

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

On the contrary, my post showed that some scientists were indeed predicting global cooling/ice age. Your refusal to admit that does not make it magically go away.

What is most amusing is that you think you can get away with such a bald-faced lie with the evidence right there for anyone to see it. Keep using weasel words like "consensus" (which is not a scientific standard) and I'll keep posting facts like this:

ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.

Abstract. Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Becuase of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg.K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

The rate at which human activities may be inadvertently modifying the climate of Earth has become a problem of serious concern 1 . In the last few decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to have increased by 7 percent 2 . During the same period, the aerosol content of the lower atmosphere may have been augmented by as much as 100 percent 3 .

How have these changes in the composition of the atmosphere affected the climate of the globe? More importantly, is it possible that a continued increase in the CO2 and dust content of the atmosphere at the present rate will produce such large-scale effects on the global temperature that the process may run away, with the planet Earth eventually becoming as hot as Venus (700 deg. K.) or as cold as Mars (230 deg. K.)?

We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.

However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!

--Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141

(Schnieder is now of course a "global warming" cheerleader. Gotta follow the money!)

Proving people like you to be liars is easily done.