The disintegrated Wilkins Ice Shelf in April 2009. (Chelys/EOSnap)

1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate

6 Apr , 2012 by

[/caption]

A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’  projections have proven to be rather accurate — and their future is now our present.

The paper, written by a team of atmospheric physicists led by the now-controversial James Hansen at NASA’s Institute for Space Studies at Goddard Space Flight Center, was recently rediscovered by researchers Geert Jan van Oldenborgh and Rein Haarsma from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI). Taking a break from research due to illness, the scientists got a chance to look back through some older, overlooked publications.

“It turns out to be a very interesting read,” they noted in their blog on RealClimate.org.

Even though the paper was given 10 pages in Science, it covers a lot of advanced topics related to climate — indicating the level of knowledge known about climate science even at that time.

“The concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much,” van Oldenborgh and Haarsma note. “Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.”

Within the paper, several graphs note the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide, both naturally occurring and manmade, and projected a future rise based on the continued use of fossil fuels by humans. Van Oldenborgh and Haarsma overlaid data gathered by NASA and KNMI in recent years and found that the projections made by Hansen et al. were pretty much spot-on.

If anything, the 1981 projections were “optimistic”.

Data from the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index fit rather closely with the 1981 projection (van Oldenborgh and Haarsma)

Hansen wrote in the original paper:

“The global temperature rose by 0.2ºC between the middle 1960’s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4ºC in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean rend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980’s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climate zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”

Now here we are in 2012, looking down the barrel of the global warming gun Hansen and team had reported was there 31 years earlier. In fact, we’ve already seen most of the predicted effects take place.

“Drought-prone regions” are receiving less rainfall, the Antarctic ice has begun to crack and crumble and bowhead whales are using the Northwest Passage as a polar short-cut. 

The retreat of Pedersen Glacier in Alaska. Left: summer 1917. Right: summer 2005. Source: The Glacier Photograph Collection, National Snow and Ice Data Center/World Data Center for Glaciology.

And that’s not the only prediction that seems to have uncannily come true.

“In light of historical evidence that it takes several decades to complete a major change in fuel use, this makes large climate change almost inevitable,” Hansen et al wrote in anticipation of the difficulties of a global shift away from dependence on carbon dioxide-emitting fossil fuels.

“CO2 effects on climate may make full exploitation of coal resources undesirable,” the paper concludes. “An appropriate strategy may be to encourage energy conservation and develop alternative energy sources, while using fossil fuels as necessary during the next few decades.”

(Watch a TED talk by James Hansen on “Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change”)

As the “next few decades” are now, for us, coming to a close, where do we stand on the encouragement of energy conservation and development on alternative energy sources?  Sadly the outlook is not as promising as it should be, not given our level of abilities to monitor the intricate complexities of our planet’s climate and to develop new technologies. True advancement will rely on our acceptance that a change is in fact necessary… a hurdle that is proving to be the most difficult one to clear.

Read van Oldenborgh and Haarsma’s blog post here, and see the full 1981 paper “Climate Impact of Increasing Carbon Dioxide” here. And for more news on our changing climate, visit NASA’s Global Climate Change site.

Tip of the anthropogenically-warmer hat to The Register.

, , , , , , , ,



Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Zoutsteen
Member
Zoutsteen
April 6, 2012 9:13 PM

to use a quote from “american’s dad”

Roger the Alien: And don’t ask me to bring him back with that E.T. finger thing cause that’s a giant load of crap.

Would be great though if someone else solved our problems like most dad’s seem to have done.

Heber Rizzo
Guest
April 7, 2012 8:39 AM

Anyway, this is Rio + 20 season. Articles and papers like these will become more and more common as the D-day comes.
Is the usual scaremonging.

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
April 7, 2012 4:18 PM

It is facts based on science. If they scare you, you should do something about AGW.

Zoutsteen
Member
Zoutsteen
April 7, 2012 8:23 PM

This isn’t about D-day. its about the bill and how much “ownership” of the bill do you accept. Denial is cheap, accepting at least 10% of your calculated share is still cheap, but people will be happier. Multiply this tactic times total countries on Earth and you understand the wish that someone else came along and resolved the overhead costs and issues.
Not to mention the joke that the air we breath was the one thing not taxed yet. But a lot of taxpayers now understand the necesity for those extra taxes they will pay.

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
April 6, 2012 9:43 PM
Sadly, it would have cost very little to avoid the increased global temperatures and local freaky weather at the time. Now no expenses will suffice, except to set the peak change some century away. Oh, and Hansen is not controversial. Maybe in the public sphere, but not as a climate scientist which the article well reflects. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, Around 2009ish I estimated that it was even chances that the rate of signal raise would admit a 3 sigma AGW attribution test when the next IPCC review comes out 2014, making an assumption of the noise… Read more »
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
April 6, 2012 9:49 PM

Speaking of hot planets, here is a system with potentially more planets than our own.

See, that is what we get from loosing Kuiper belt objects from “planetary” status: exciting science news!

Trippy
Member
Trippy
April 6, 2012 10:20 PM

I’ve (also) used figure 7 from that paper (Hansen 1981) to make points regarding how much and how fast in climate change discussions before.

Bertie Seyffert
Guest
April 6, 2012 11:44 PM

Of course their projections were accurate. Science isn’t performed by incompetent idiots, even though not addressing this misconception is the bread and butter of science in the media. This article is a perfect example of this. Not bashing UT razz, just pointing this out…

Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
April 7, 2012 2:05 AM

Well it is interesting to have some atmospheric physics confirmed by an uncontrolled experiment conducted by billions of participants in a freak show.

LC

Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 12:02 AM

Global temperature (Earth as a whole is running very close to average temperature.) According to the NASA IR satellite data,

the temperature of the Earth was a little cooler than average in both January and February. Here’s the extent of the Arctic Icecap.

You can see the ice has actually grown a little in March and the icecap is now very close to average extent. It’s also grown significantly since 2007. The Antarctic icecap has also grown significantly in the last year and has actually been growing pretty steadily since the mid 1980s.

Andrew
Guest
Andrew
April 7, 2012 1:35 AM

You need to reevaluate the quality of your sources, Mark. And learn the difference between short-term and long-term patterns. Way too much of the anti-global warming rhetoric depends on deliberately confusing people about which patterns are meaningful and which are not.

Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 2:03 AM
Really? The icecaps are melting? Hardly! I think the confusion comes from the scientists who want grant money, and will say and do what ever necessary to get it. Follow the free money and you will find the corruption. I realize this is a left wing website, so my views will be ridiculed…after all thats what liberals do!! But America is on to the hoax of the century called “Global Warming” I was one of those kids in the 70’s sitting in science class listening to how our polution was gonna cloud up the skies and we were headed for an ice age if we keep it up!! Now its gonna heat things up….Whats up with that?!?! Anyhow… Read more »
anth55
Guest
anth55
April 7, 2012 2:44 AM

Almost all of the countries in the world are on board with the need to combat global warming and the consequences it would pose to farming and coastal cities which would be vulnerable to rises in the sea level. Ooops there goes New Orleans.
If only the world were flat. Sigh.

Darrin Mattson
Guest
Darrin Mattson
April 7, 2012 3:05 AM
What, the world isn’t flat? I am so not a scientist, but I pay attention. Undoubtable humans are doing something. What that will end up to be like, well, no one really knows now and when we do we are in the future and it took time to get there. So was borne hind-sight. We can see from the little hindsight that there is something going on and the arguement is whether humans are the cause. If not us, than what? Earth, from what I read is in a quietish geological period and the sun’s activities are not really much to write home about. Not one animal species besides humans is building a new coal plant only shightly… Read more »
Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 5:13 AM

Look at all the sheeple lined up all in a row!!

You all want to ride around in your rediculous little electric car? Go ahead just dont force me to buy that junk!!

Give me something I wanna buy, you know like being able to go more than 35 miles on a single charge!!

Where does the electric come from? Did you say coal burning plants? Hmm seems to me your poluting either way…

I’ll stick with my F 250 But hey let me know when you can build somthing that can replace that!!

Oh and one more thing I do use cfl in my home they work great and save me money!!

Global warming is over rated and the Earths climate is cyclical.

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
April 7, 2012 9:30 AM

Boo! Three thumbs down.

Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 5:28 AM

Were you around …say in medieval times? During that period the Earth warmed considerably. There were no coal burning plants, automobiles or airplanes… maybe it was the torches they carried around for light…

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 7, 2012 9:46 AM

Why not go back and crawl under your rock of cherry-picked science that meets your conservative talking point agenda and quit trolling on this thread? If you disagree… make your point ONCE and go blow away somewhere in Rush Limbaugh land with the other a-scientific drones?

Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 10:53 AM

Ahhh your so cute when your mad…

TheDirtBoy
Guest
TheDirtBoy
April 7, 2012 6:32 AM

New Orleans? I would have gone with Venice, or even better, Maldives. Try talking Maldives into believing AGW isn’t real, they’ll laugh in your face, or they would laugh if the ocean wasn’t swallowing up all their islands.

Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 7:56 AM

Thats why they build boats just ask Noah…

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
April 7, 2012 9:33 AM

… the same waters that should have drown you for your stupidity.

Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 10:48 AM

Ha ha the hate in you is so becoming!!

Go back to your OWS camp!!

Olaf
Member
Olaf
April 7, 2012 12:14 PM

How unscientific.

Noah, the fictional character?
The ark the boat that is impossible to build?
The ark the boat that is impossible to make it float?
The flood that has no proof that it ever existed?

Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 1:13 PM

Only in your dark demonic world…

anth55
Guest
anth55
April 7, 2012 3:56 PM

I chose New Orleans as a low lying city in the USA. Some of central London, UK is a reclaimed marsh which is now protected by the Thames flood barrier. The flood barrier has been used significantly more frequently than predicted.

TheDirtBoy
Guest
TheDirtBoy
April 8, 2012 3:25 AM

I wonder, just what exactly is it going to take for the nay sayers to face reality? How much farm land has to turn to desert? How much of the ice caps have to melt before it’s seen as a problem? If Venice were to disappear into the the ocean, would they care then, or how about Manhattan? If the New York Stock Exchange became part of the Atlantic Ocean, would that be a problem?

Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 5:19 AM

New Orleans? Now there is a classic blunder. Why would anyone build a city in a soup bowl right next to the ocean?

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
April 7, 2012 9:34 AM

Boo! Four thumbs down for the jerk!

BogoBbbrat
Guest
BogoBbbrat
April 7, 2012 4:53 AM

Yes, that explains the increase in the number of serious Hurricanes over the past 20 years, as predicted by the “model”…except, the number went down to an all time low….trivial warming with 10 model variables that all can overwhelm CO2…then predict a hockey stick in the future as a justification for massive social engineering….sorry, the game is up. Time to move the snake oil wagon to the next town before you get tar and feathers here.

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
April 7, 2012 4:29 AM

Ridicule? Can we take the chance that mindless sheep like Mark might have their own agenda? What will happen if Mark is wrong?

There are untold consequences when you have been crapping in your nest for so long!

Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 5:18 AM

Nations will go broke…Ahh I see an agenda!!

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
April 7, 2012 7:10 AM

…or humanity either weakens, crumbles, or worst, disappears of the planet for good!

Humankind is responsible for looking after their planet not to use it as a huge rubbish dump. I, for one, don’t like living in our own created excrement (and especially, not yours!) Fool.

Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 7:54 AM

You been watching way to much of the sy-fy channel champ!!

Besides your a liberal your use to “living in your own created excrement” what a tool!!

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
April 7, 2012 9:38 AM

Way too many fantasies with invisible friends. Also it is sci-fi not sy-fy, which shows you level of obfuscation against the facts.

Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 10:46 AM
Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 7, 2012 9:42 AM

Troll… plain and simple. Go back to FOXNEWS .com and bathe in that ignorance…

Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 10:44 AM

ahhh the real you is starting to show…

You go ahead and believe your lame stream media what a farce!!

Bobr
Member
Bobr
April 7, 2012 10:35 PM

This, and other similar but re-worded posts by you, is the predictable hissy-fit response by a liberal when there is no legitimate response to an argument.

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 7, 2012 9:41 AM

Ya, scientists make crap loads of money on bogus grants and live like kings eating caviar and drinking champagne every day… In your fantasy world. Look at satellite images of the icecaps and tell me (us) this is all doctored and inaccurate… REALLY?!

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 7, 2012 9:49 AM

” so my views will be ridiculed…after all thats what liberals do!!”… you mean kinda like YOU’RE doing on this thread with your multiple comments? What a hypocritical imbecile! You’re so jaded, you can’t even see that you’re doing the exact same thing and in the exact same sentence that you ridicule US for doing… Wow… just, … wow…

Mark
Guest
Mark
April 7, 2012 10:41 AM

“hypocritical imbecile!” Me? Really?

I suppose as you speak of this global warming bunk you then go jump into your fossil fuel burning car or hop on a jet!! How about every time you heat your house or turn on your lights!! Heck the very computer your writing this on is being fed electricity from a COAL BURNING PLANT!!

So please spare me with your claims of hypocrisy!!

Wow… just, … wow…

Skip Nordenholz
Guest
April 7, 2012 6:53 PM

No one claimed pollution was going to cause an ice age, I think you made this one up yourself, the idea of a coming ice age was a minority opinion that the media pick up for some reason, unlike global warming which is the consensus, yes I know who would have thought the media would get it wrong.
Why don’t you following the money from the likes of the heart land institute. There is no evidence that supporting global warming is more profitable the supporting global warming denial, in fact there is big money being paid for global warming denial, whereas one the other side the money is just to do good science.

Andrew
Guest
Andrew
April 10, 2012 5:38 AM

Astronomy is left-wing? That’s news to me.

Actually I think that it’s okay to be skeptical of anything that you find iffy, including global warming. That’s the beginning of good critical thinking.

However, that does not justify taking the leap from critical disbelief to conspiracy theory and ridiculing an entire diverse class of people. (scientists)

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
April 7, 2012 4:21 PM

Very funny! AGW denialists shouldn’t comment on science, they look so foolish when they spout so many errors in so little space.

If you _had_ one source against the thousands of climate papers that support AGW, you would give it. Alas…

Heber Rizzo
Guest
April 7, 2012 8:14 AM

Mark, you are using just raw and real data, and it isn´t enough. AGW is a religion and a political-philosophical position.

They have a dogma and their models (you know what they say about models: bullshit in, bullshit out), so they don´t need reality.

But the fact is that Antarctic ice has been growing, and is now above mean, and that there has been no warming since 1998 (GISS has “cooled” the past to keep an upper trend, but satellite and raw data tell a different tale).

Jason Major
Guest
April 7, 2012 4:07 PM

I am always amazed at the “no warming since 1998” quip. 2010 was the warmest year on record, tying 2005. And Arctic sea ice (measured in September) is down considerably since ’98. There’s lots of data related to these factors and more at http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/.

As always, note the trends indicated by the graphs. That’s the important part, much more so than any individual year’s number.

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
April 7, 2012 4:21 PM

Very funny! AGW denialists shouldn’t comment on science, they look so foolish when they spout so many errors in so little space.

If you _had_ one source against the thousands of climate papers that support AGW, you would give it. Alas…

Skip Nordenholz
Guest
April 7, 2012 7:30 PM
Greater temperatures means more water moister in the air which means more snow. Thanks to more snow the ice caps have been extending further in the winter but its very thin as it only one seasons worth, in the summer the ice recedes further than it has in the past. Places like greenland have large glaciers that form large lakes on top of them in the summer, the lakes then disappear as the water finds its way though crack to the bedrock, the water then acts as a lubricant speeding up the flow of the ice into the see, as the earth get warmer these lake will get larger in the summer and provide more of a lubricating… Read more »
Olaf
Member
Olaf
April 7, 2012 12:19 PM

“the temperature of the Earth was a little cooler than average in both January and February.”

Now tell me what has this to do with global warming?
Let’s see if you understand what global warming is.
What is your definition of global warming in YOUR words (not some link, but YOUR OWN words).

And what is the definition of LOCAL weather in YOUR own words.

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
April 7, 2012 4:22 PM

Very funny! AGW denialists shouldn’t comment on science, they look so foolish when they spout so many errors in so little space.

If you _had_ one source against the thousands of climate papers that support AGW, you would give it. Alas…

Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 7, 2012 6:36 AM

What a load of humanistic, liberal CRAP! Just because those predictions were accurate, DOESN’T mean that they were right!! …er…. wait-a-minute……..

Heber Rizzo
Guest
April 7, 2012 9:34 AM

If you like dogma, don´t read this, but if you are one of those who prefer real numbers and real data, here you have some:

Southern Hemisphere sea ice anomaly:

Antarctic sea ice extent:

UAH Global temperature (1979 thru March 2012:

IPCC proyections vs. HadCRUT3 Global Temperatures (and a Scaffeta proyection):

Sorry, folks. Religion is not science, and dogma is not real world.

DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
April 7, 2012 10:07 AM

Speaking of cherry-picking data….

Oh, btw: When was the last time before 2005 that the North-West passage was open?

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
April 7, 2012 4:23 PM

Very funny! AGW denialists shouldn’t comment on science, they look so foolish when they spout so many errors in so little space.

If you _had_ one source against the thousands of climate papers that support AGW, you would give it. Alas…

Skip Nordenholz
Guest
April 7, 2012 6:38 PM
“Antarctic sea ice extent:” Sorry this is actually consistent with global warming, increase in temperature means more moisture in the air, means more snow in places below the zero degree line. In the summer the sea recedes much more than in the past but winter come and the ice come back much further but much thinner because it is only 1 seasons worth. A similar thing is happening with mountain tops getting more snow as the snow line creeps up the mountain. “UAH Global temperature” this one show an increase, there is a flattening out with the last few years, as there have been other flat periods in the past. The running average, is useless at the ends… Read more »
Jeff Boerst
Guest
Jeff Boerst
April 7, 2012 9:54 AM

Fraser, could you please ban this Troll named Mark from this forum? He’s not being at all constructive and really he’s just… well, trolling.

Dampe
Guest
Dampe
April 7, 2012 9:59 AM
DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
April 7, 2012 10:15 AM

Interesting. It proves once more that walking on the moon does not necessarily imply that you have expertise in other fields of science. That’s why we have experts in those fields. And they are named experts for a reason!

Or do you believe that other astronaut (forgot his name) who claims to have seen alien spaceships? If yes: Congratulations. If no: Think about your link once again!

(And yes, this comment might contain irony or sarcasm!)

Dampe
Guest
Dampe
April 7, 2012 2:08 PM
His point regarding alarmist predictions to obtain funding is a fair opinion. It’s exactly the reason why i’m sceptical of the Global Warming science. When many scientists careers are balancing on whether human caused Global Warming is as alarming as is fed to us, it’s hard not to be sceptical. Not to mention western governments wanting to get their hands in everyones pockets. Here in Australia, my government wants to slap a carbon tax on us with the false claim it will reduce the temperature of the planet. While i know thats nothing to do with the actual ‘science’, its a huge reason so many people are now passionately against the idea that man is heating the planet.… Read more »
Skip Nordenholz
Guest
April 7, 2012 5:18 PM
Why don’t you apply that same scepticism to the other side, there is direct evidence of money attempting to manipulate the fact from people who really do have large amounts. Oh and the idea that people are claiming reducing C02 will reduce temperature instead of just stop the decrease is a flat out lie. Andrew Bolt who has a history or reinterpreting facts, he treats politics as if its a team sport, decided the ‘Tim Flannery’ said that C02 reduction would have no effect for a 1000 years when what he said is it would take 1000 year for temperatures to drop, so to save face what people are claiming has been twisted around to fit his initial… Read more »
postman1
Member
postman1
April 7, 2012 8:17 PM

You say “‘Tim Flannery’ said that C02 reduction would have no effect for a 1000 years when what he said is it would take 1000 year for temperatures to drop,”
There is not a lot of difference here.

Skip Nordenholz
Guest
April 7, 2012 8:47 PM

No sorry they are completely different the goal of reducing c02 is to slow and stop the increase. Anybody who has made an effort to investigate the science know that the problem is not the temperature at the currently level or a little bit warmer, but what the temperature will be 100+ years from now if they keep increasing.

weeasle
Member
weeasle
April 7, 2012 11:16 PM
See above post – Although mostly I agree manmade carbon is contributing to long-term warming and should if possible, be reversed (see above posts), I agree that certain directions of government policy in Australia could be better focused. It is a good start to attempt to create a carbon-reduction economy but I am not sure the incentives for clean energy production and more efficiency will be doled-out correctly, ie. big business seems to get of lightly and small business and consumers seem to bear the brunt of short-term negative economic effects. I have waded too far into politics – Just wanted to reiterate that I believe there is room in science to allow some people to be sceptical,… Read more »
Ivan3man_At_Large
Member
Ivan3man_At_Large
April 7, 2012 2:45 PM

The name of that alien believing astronaut dude is Edgar Mitchell.

DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
April 8, 2012 9:27 PM

Thank you! smile

Prism2Spectrum
Guest
Prism2Spectrum
April 7, 2012 3:34 PM
“Global Warming Science” (vaunted by some, almost worshiped by others): Its focusing film of pure “science” at work, and most dire graph-projections, are, of course, generated through a clear, unfiltered lens (where not a smudge of point, or blur of picture can be discovered, or will be detected). Projections of which are free from biased, manipulative data-selection, and inclusive of all possible contributers, factored-in, at every reading-point of ice flow turn, heat wave pulse, and wind stream change, from Electromagnetically-charged Space above, to thermal Ocean-masses below: The whole PC-picture, (oops, sorry) GW-picture, frames all operating systems (HD clear and true!), and encompasses the entire sweep of the great planetary machine complex (beyond human fathoming, in mechanisms-interacting, and forces… Read more »
Skip Nordenholz
Guest
April 7, 2012 5:45 PM
Nice piece of poetry but completely devoid of and science or even reasoning. Global warming has nothing to do the political correctness, it has nothing to do with politics, it is a scientific issue. Resorting to the kind of ‘ignorant reckoning’ that is the basis of politics, (connect global warming to PC and I can make it sound bad) has nothing to do with reasoning, rational thought or following the evidence where every it goes. It is about the pathetic team sport mentality that is the staple of politics where you pick a side and win any way you can. Remember in politics changing you opinion in response to new evidence is considered a weakness, flip flopping, this… Read more »
Prism2Spectrum
Guest
Prism2Spectrum
April 7, 2012 8:13 PM
For remark, Thank You. As one “devoid of …science [and] reasoning”, and one who resorts to “ignorant reckoning”, all I will say is we disagree. You have freedom to rebut, “dismantle”, shred, spindle and mutilate my view—and criticize it. I hope I have freedom to give a NON-CONFORMING opinion, now and then. But I must hasten to add, that does NOT excuse unfairly attacking a community in blanket terms. Critical comments is another thing. Your reply had a sting of edge. It made me realize some wrong in what I wrote. So, in that sense, it was good, and spurred a little adjustment. One can have a “spirited” debate, can one have a “spirited” opinion–in line with the… Read more »
Skip Nordenholz
Guest
April 7, 2012 9:07 PM

I was a little bit nasty, sorry I had just read a few really bad comments and yours was the one I picked to represent them all.

Prism2Spectrum
Guest
Prism2Spectrum
April 9, 2012 12:19 AM

Thank you. I respect–understand–and appreciate your words.

Prism2Spectrum
Guest
Prism2Spectrum
April 7, 2012 5:27 PM
“Global Warming Science” (vaunted by some, almost worshiped by others): Its focusing film of pure “science” at work, and most dire graph-projections, are, of course, generated through a clear, unfiltered lens (where not a smudge of point, or blur of picture can be discovered, or will be detected). Projections free from bias, manipulative data-selection, and, of course, inclusive of all possible contributing factors, publishing EVERY reading-point of ice flow turn, heat wave pulse, and wind stream change, from Electromagnetically-charged Space downfalls from above, to thermal Ocean-masses from below: The the full, air-brush-free PC-picture, (oops, sorry) GW-picture frames all operating systems (HD clear and true!), encompassing the entire sweep of the great planetary machine-complex (in mechanisms-interacting, and forces at… Read more »
DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
April 8, 2012 5:09 PM
You have said a lot. And most of it is irrelevant, since it gives no new insights, and no new arguments. Just one thing: From what I have read and seen, Mr. Aldrin seems a down-to-earth, common-sense man (knows something about mechanical engineering), who has been in real Space. I just wonder if some of the hardline GW “scientists” may be lost in virtual space. …. This is exactly what I mean. Aldrin is a “common-sense man knowing something about engineering”. Nice, and this does of course qualify him to make comments about climate and Global Warming? Exactly why? He has not studied it. He has not worked in it for several years. I am quite sure that… Read more »
Prism2Spectrum
Guest
Prism2Spectrum
April 8, 2012 11:52 PM
A courtesy responsive, since my comment was in “reply” (I wish to avoid debates): I can only respect you as a scientist. You, as such have some solid grounding in Physics. Mr. Adrin (at this point, I do not like speaking for a man I do not know) had such a solid ground in the principles of Mechanics, and was capable enough in all that was required, that he was one of the chosen few to take the first crucial journey to another world (a lot rode on that epic Apollo flight), where this pilot-engineer could come to stand on the Moon’s forbidding surface, and gaze-back at his Homeworld. I have deep respect for those men. I, for… Read more »
Prism2Spectrum
Guest
Prism2Spectrum
April 8, 2012 11:52 PM
A courtesy responsive, since my comment was in “reply” (I wish to avoid debates): I can only respect you as a scientist. You, as such have some solid grounding in Physics. Mr. Adrin (at this point, I do not like speaking for a man I do not know) had such a solid ground in the principles of Mechanics, and was capable enough in all that was required, that he was one of the chosen few to take the first crucial journey to another world (a lot rode on that epic Apollo flight), where this pilot-engineer could come to stand on the Moon’s forbidding surface, and gaze-back at his Homeworld. I have deep respect for those men. I, for… Read more »
DrFlimmer
Member
DrFlimmer
April 9, 2012 10:52 AM
I did not mean to disrespect Mr. Aldrin. He has certainly accomplished great things which are far beyond my reach. And I also agree with him, that is to say, I listen to him on things regarding spaceflight (as an example). That is certainly his area of expertise. However, climate is another topic. And in this field I will certainly listen more to the arguments and reasons of the related experts than to Mr. Aldrin. Just because the experts know more and know better, since they have studied climate for a very long time giving them the expertise in that field. (On the other hand, I wouldn’t listen to them as much as to Mr. Aldrin on topics… Read more »
Prism2Spectrum
Guest
Prism2Spectrum
April 9, 2012 12:24 PM
Appreciate response, Mr. Flimmer: On cross-field advise, or suggestion. No major disagreement. What you say is sensible. No, a “Cobbler” should not advise a Taylor on his business. This thought just came, though: they BOTH can understand Business: running and operating one. So, your not a Climatologist. But, you know more than a little something about the Science Process, and how it is, or should be conducted. Some, you surely know, have questioned the Science METHOD behind some of what maps-out the doom and gloom forecasts. Now, whether they are right or wrong, each has to critically judge for themselves. Being a hot topic, that stirs the atmosphere (just scan this forum!), opinions will be anything but cool… Read more »
Prism2Spectrum
Guest
Prism2Spectrum
April 9, 2012 12:22 AM

Some of us may need this reminder:
__________________________________

UT “Rules For Posting” –

2. “Civility and Decorum: Politeness is the top rule here.

Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That’s fine, as long as THE PEOPLE INVOLVED EXTEND ONE ANOTHER BASIC RESPECT.

Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be nice.

Attack the ideas, NOT THE PERSON(s) presenting them. If you’ve got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to AD HOMINEM OR PERSONAL ATTACKS. Be mindful and respectful of others’ feelings ….”

(emphasis mine throughout).
___________________________________

weeasle
Member
weeasle
April 7, 2012 10:06 AM
OK, here is my 2 cents.. It is helpful to avoid labeling one another. If the climate scientists are right we will avoid painful, harmful and expensive climate change. If the sceptics are right we will avoid wasting time, money and effort. Either way, most people are motivated to help their fellow human somehow. With that in mind, I believe it is helpful to take all information on-board and focus the discussion on something we should all be able to agree on: Accelerated the devlopment of non-poluting power sources. I hope developed nations will follow China’s lead in developing the Thorium MSR (molten salt reactor). This technology was developed by Sandia Labs in New Mexico by the USA… Read more »
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
April 7, 2012 4:29 PM

Very funny! AGW denialists shouldn’t comment on science, they look so foolish when they spout so many errors in so little space.

If you _had_ one source against the thousands of climate papers that support AGW, you would give it. Alas…
—————
No, it is _not_ helpful to avoid ridiculing nutters by “labeling” them. Ridicule of religious fanatics or other incompetents have always been one of the best weapons of rational persons through the ages.

Moreover, you yourself engages in labeling when you incorrectly call science denialists “sceptics” [sic], as skeptics are commonly agreed on bases their skepticism on accepted science. Climate science and its observation of AGW are accepted…

weeasle
Member
weeasle
April 7, 2012 11:00 PM
Hey Torbjorn, Where do you see me denying anything? As a matter of fact I didn’t state my opinion on the issue. (By the way, I lean more towards believing AGW is real, and recognise that pollution is not good). You did state your opinions and you got all emotional and labelled me. “Denialist” unfortunately has a bad connotation with “Holocaust denialists” and should avoid being used against people who rightly or wrongly may wish to debate the merits of a scientific subject. If you want to sit in your little academic echo chamber chanting choruses go right ahead. Good luck with that – see how many people you alienate in a small space. By the way, in… Read more »
Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
April 8, 2012 1:57 PM

I don’t think the thorium nuclear cycle, or closed breeder T to U233, is a panacea for solving our resource and energy problems. However, the LFTR system is one of a number of options for the 21st century which may ameliorate some of these issues. Also the LFTR does not have the meltdown issues of the U to P nuclear cycle. The plutonium breeding cycle was chosen because the plutonium could be used in nuclear weaponry.

LC

weeasle
Member
weeasle
April 9, 2012 7:00 AM

I agree with you on all points. I singled out thorium because i believe world governments have a duty of care to implement it to help get rid of all the dangerous nuclear waste – and burying nuclear waste or putting it under the water table doesnt seem wise either.
Thorium in combination with wind, solar, hydroelectric can get us where we need to be until fusion can be safely commercialised.

Wezley

Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
April 9, 2012 1:27 PM
I do think these huge stores of plutonium we have accumulated should be consumed. As I understand we have banked about as much energy as is contained in Iraq in the form of oil. So the standard Rankin cycle nuclear reactors can be used to consume this. As this happens we might the transition to the thorium LFTR. The energy matrix we have in the future will require some stabilizing element that can take up slack from renewable sources. Solar and wind power are dependent on diurnal and meteorological conditions, and so down times need to be taken up by something. The LFTR seems to be the best option for this through this century and maybe beyond. LC
weeasle
Member
weeasle
April 9, 2012 12:11 PM

Also, please see –

http://thoriumpetition.com/

Marcus
Guest
Marcus
April 7, 2012 8:26 AM

Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil’s pawn. Alone among God’s primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother’s land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
April 7, 2012 9:25 AM

Boo!

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
April 7, 2012 4:23 PM

Very funny! AGW denialists and religious nature denialists shouldn’t comment on science, they look so foolish when they spout so many errors in so little space.

If you _had_ one source against the thousands of climate papers that support AGW, you would give it. Alas…

newpapyrus
Member
April 7, 2012 4:29 PM

The Lawgiver was a very wise orangutansmile

Marcel

Bobr
Member
Bobr
April 7, 2012 4:35 PM

EVERY DAY Nostradamus’ predictions are proving true, too!
When will we learn?!

([proudly boasting] In Canada, our global warming expert used to breed gnats!)

Skip Nordenholz
Guest
April 7, 2012 6:01 PM

actually Nostradamus does’t make any predictions, people go over his vary poetic metaphorical writing and try to make it fit something, often passages that where once supposed to be predictions of one the ‘Napoleon War’ are reinterpreted to be a prediction of something else later on, world war 1 then 2. Global warming scientist have made measurable predictions that can not be made to fit any outcome.

Olaf
Member
Olaf
April 7, 2012 6:25 PM

Nostradamus?
You aware that you are on a science site?

Olaf
Member
Olaf
April 7, 2012 6:25 PM

Nostradamus?
You aware that you are on a science site?

Bobr
Member
Bobr
April 7, 2012 6:54 PM

Apparently the concept of sarcasm is absent in some parts of the world…

Robert Thomson
Guest
Robert Thomson
April 8, 2012 12:35 AM

Olaf2: Dr. David Suzuki here in Canada.

mememine
Guest
mememine
April 7, 2012 12:27 PM
Exaggerated science trumps any and all consensus science. SCIENCE poisoned the planet with their pesticides and made environment protection necessary in the first place. You lab coat consultants exploited this consultants wet dream of climate blame and yes there are charges coming from the justice department soon. We missed getting Bush for his false war…………………. U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 or By Phone: Department of Justice Main Switchboard -202-514-2000 Climate change has done to SCIENCE and journalism what naughty priests and suicide bombers did for religion. EXAGGERATION is not a crime because its’ the “nature” of science to assume a crisis is real then study the effects instead of causes, exaggerate and… Read more »
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
April 7, 2012 4:30 PM

Very funny! AGW denialists shouldn’t comment on science, they look so foolish when they spout so many errors in so little space.

If you _had_ one source against the thousands of climate papers that support AGW, you would give it. Alas…

RetiredCatholic
Guest
RetiredCatholic
April 7, 2012 4:40 PM

You test science like clerics used to test witches and you thinking is just as advanced.

Skip Nordenholz
Guest
April 7, 2012 5:54 PM

“Meanwhile, the entire world of SCIENCE had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run “CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS””
Sorry who you think scientist are, its not some global organisation with political clout. They are just people with educations in a particular fields. They don’t all meet up in their international Scientist headquarters and vote on how they are going to manipulate world governments. This would make a good south park episode though.

Skip Nordenholz
Guest
April 7, 2012 5:54 PM

“Meanwhile, the entire world of SCIENCE had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run “CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS””
Sorry who you think scientist are, its not some global organisation with political clout. They are just people with educations in a particular fields. They don’t all meet up in their international Scientist headquarters and vote on how they are going to manipulate world governments. This would make a good south park episode though.

Cam Kirmser
Guest
April 7, 2012 2:43 PM

The climate may be warming, but it has yet to be broven that Man is the cause.

A recent report showed that the Medieval Warm Period was not localized to Europe and indicates that the entire planet was warmer at that time. If CO2 is the culprit, from where was it produced since Man’s industry did not exist?

Anthropogenic global warming is the opinion of some scientist, not all. But, even if it were the opinion of ALL, it is still opinion. Put AGW to the test of science, put it to the Scientific Method and see what comes out in the wash. Science is not opinion.

Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
April 7, 2012 3:16 PM

You clearly did not read the paper, or you do not understand how science works. Science is not about proving things. Science is about benchmarking predictions of theories with measurements and data. The uncontrolled experiment of releasing CO_2 into the atmosphere has resulted in the sort of temperature increase this theory predicted. We may then say the data supports the theory.

LC

Skip Nordenholz
Guest
April 7, 2012 7:10 PM
climatologist predicted that the upper atmosphere would cool whilst the lower warmed because greenhouse gases slow the rate of heat loss from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere, that came true. climatologist predicted that the poles would warm faster that the equator because green house gasses hold onto heat longer and therefore heat is more evenly distributed, that came true. climatologist predicted that the average temperature would increase by 1 degree by now, a study sponsored by one of the Koch brothers (big oil guys and famous for sponsoring global warming denial science), and performed by a scientist who up until recently did not agree with the consensus of global warming, (probable why the Koch brothers sponsored… Read more »
SJStar
Guest
SJStar
April 8, 2012 9:34 AM

Plain ignorance is not an opinion either.

The evidence is clear cut. There is no doubt than humankind has damaged the natural environment just by the processes of living and its huge usage requirements for energy. If that is a part of the function of the natural world clearly proves you own opinion amount to zero.

Engelchen
Guest
Engelchen
April 11, 2012 2:54 PM

Cam if the global warming was caused by an increase of radiation of the sun there would be a sign of temperature increase in the stratosphere, and area above the troposphere that is not effected by human-made carbon emission. Guess what: it’s the same as 200 years ago. The radiation caused heating of the climate is inaccurate.
And another thing that really bugs me: Scientists don’t act out on their opinion. They only state research results that show a significance. Conflict in the scientific world often arises due to stakeholders interests in their own benefit.

jjb
Member
jjb
April 7, 2012 3:08 PM

Wow – which is worse. The Doom & Gloom Science of “12-21-2012” or this? Remember that this was written right after the TIMES: GLOBAL ICE AGE COMING! Also when the Solar Cycle changed …. (science) … I guess things are getting, thanks Obama! for nothing, in the World of Astronomy so we have to go Politically Correct Preaching???? Guess so!!

Skip Nordenholz
Guest
April 7, 2012 5:32 PM
The idea of a imminent coming ice age was never the scientific consensus, this was a minority opinion pretty much trumpeted by one scientist which the media for some reason pickup on. Man made global warming started as a science in the 1950’s as a minority but respectable opinion, it become a majority opinion by the 70’s about 75% of climatologist, and then went on to become the over welling consensus that it is today thank to the increasing amount of science, and because prediction like the upper atmosphere cooling and the lower warming as a result of greenhouse gasses slowing the rate of heat loss from the lower atmosphere to the upper, or the pole warming more… Read more »
jjb
Member
jjb
April 7, 2012 7:48 PM
And it’s still not a ‘consensus’ … When you put the Global Warming E-mails Gate – showing from some of the ‘founders’ it was/is a scam. When you had the UN BAN the nay sayers from the so called summit. Why did they ban the scientist that were ‘nay sayers’. If the science is so ‘solid’?? You even have the BIG PREACHERS of this living their lives 180 degrees to what they “preach”. Even the Rev. Al Gore is living his life with ZERO change showing he believes this. Bottom line there is a “consensus” that says, “Yes.” and they work very very hard to ban – edit – censor the nay sayers. Plus if Obama had even… Read more »
Skip Nordenholz
Guest
April 7, 2012 8:35 PM
All three independent inquiries on climategate found no evidence of a scam. The supposed hiding of a decline in temperature was in fact a decline in tree ring tree growth among a group of european trees, it was not a secret it was publicly discusse ‘the tree ring anomaly’. The claim that one scientist expressed doubts is false, he never used the word doubt or any synonym of the word doubt. As the conservative economist magazine put it, anyone who thinks he is expressing doubts about global warming is foolish, he knows there are short term variation in climate and he is expressing his frustration that he does not have enough data to model these short term variations.… Read more »
Ernie Dunbar
Guest
April 9, 2012 8:11 PM

Are you really that much of a dunderhead or did someone hire you to act like one on this forum? It’s astonishing that anyone interested in science would hold such attitudes in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

Ernie Dunbar
Guest
April 9, 2012 8:10 PM

Yes, it’s particularly doom-and-gloom when *you* don’t want to change. “But I *liiike* my SUV and my coal-fired power plants! I *can’t* change!” is the typical attitude that needs to be changed before the public even starts accepting that change needs to happen.

William928
Member
William928
April 9, 2012 10:53 PM

Nice intellectual argument, JJ. When one can only resort to Obama bashing and the Politically Correct card, you’ve shown your hand. Drill baby drill, right?

Eppur_si_muove
Guest
Eppur_si_muove
April 7, 2012 8:23 PM
The fact that people can still debate over whether or not AGW even exist,… or if it exist, whether or not humans are the cause of it,… just goes to show you how screwed we really are. Sadly the point of no return for humans has come and passed; this debate should have been over and finished with, decades ago. Homo sapiens are a species that need amply time to adapt to new changes; we are not capable of undergoing dramatic changes over night, and it’s just not within human nature to do so. We have squandered what little time we had to adapt, and take real action towards this problem on frivolous arguments. Now dramatic solutions are… Read more »
postman1
Member
postman1
April 7, 2012 8:40 PM

Torbjörn – Buddy, you are acting like a troll, posting the same comment over and over. Plus, isn’t this a discussion board? You say you don’t want those with opposing views to even comment here. This is one of the self inflicted problems the AGW group has and still fails to recognize. The informed public wants to hear all sides of the argument aired. When one side tries to silence the other, they are viewed as bullies and lose followers, whether concensus or minority, it doesn’t matter. Please stop bullying and allow discussion without trolling.

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
April 8, 2012 9:04 AM

Boo! Troll complainer becomes a troll themselves? Mmm….
Who’s quelling the debate here wonder?

postman1
Member
postman1
April 7, 2012 8:47 PM

I am not sure that I see how an AGW article has any relevance on an Astronomy and space site. Is there any?

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
April 8, 2012 9:19 AM
Actually it promotes how utterly ignorant the naysayers are. Unqualified, non-scientifically trained ‘experts’, nattering on about something they either don’t understand nor with the ability to decipher the complex nature of the problem. Just because it is hard to understand, does not mean it is wrong or hides an agenda or some completely wacko conspiracy theory. Your response, and the previous one, here easily fit into this notion. Failing to see the connections between astronomy or space science to climate changes shows your overall ignorance. It is one part of gaining the appropriate evidence through observations from space, meaning new knowledge allows scientists to learn what is going in regards climate change. All your promoting here is ignorance… Read more »
SJStar
Guest
SJStar
April 8, 2012 9:19 AM
Actually it promotes how utterly ignorant the naysayers are. Unqualified, non-scientifically trained ‘experts’, nattering on about something they either don’t understand nor with the ability to decipher the complex nature of the problem. Just because it is hard to understand, does not mean it is wrong or hides an agenda or some completely wacko conspiracy theory. Your response, and the previous one, here easily fit into this notion. Failing to see the connections between astronomy or space science to climate changes shows your overall ignorance. It is one part of gaining the appropriate evidence through observations from space, meaning new knowledge allows scientists to learn what is going in regards climate change. All your promoting here is ignorance… Read more »
hal9000
Member
hal9000
April 8, 2012 1:04 AM

There’s been global warming since the ice age!

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
April 8, 2012 9:27 AM

Dante-isk views are far more powerful.

It is actual a balance point between fire and ice, where at the moment, humankind, by its continues unsustainable abuses of the planet’s atmosphere (and crust), to artificially modify the natural narrow balance point to induce real change on the Earth’s climate.

If you take the humans out of the equation, then the same natural balance point has no need to compensate for the influence of humans.

It is that simple.

wpDiscuz