This day in history - June 24, 1974

[the_only_turek_fan]

Time magazine article exactly 34 years ago.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

[Daradon]

Well yeah, some people even went as far to say in recent years that this current warming tread might be STAVING OFF a long overdue ice age.

I think any freeze global warming talks about, is well after a pretty bad warming period. I mean, this article talks about ice packs. Anyone who has been to the Columbia icefields or any other glaciers knows that ice packs aren't doing so well right now.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well yeah, some people even went as far to say in recent years that this current warming tread might be STAVING OFF a long overdue ice age.

I think any freeze global warming talks about, is well after a pretty bad warming period. I mean, this article talks about ice packs. Anyone who has been to the Columbia icefields or any other glaciers knows that ice packs aren't doing so well right now.

Not sure exactly what you mean, but using receding ice fields as evidence of global warming is very weak. The ice fields have been receding at varying annual rates since the end of the last ice age...They will continue to until we have another one. Just because they're getting smaller is no cause for concern whatsoever. I'm not against the idea that human caused climate change exists...We're just not melting the ice fields.

[Daradon]

^^^ Ok fair enough, I'm just trying to figure out the context in which TOTF posted this.

Isn't there rules about stating discussions and vague thread titles?

I mean, if just taken as an article, yes this was written about 34 years ago and yes it was interesting.

Not sure what else to say...

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Just because they're getting smaller is no cause for concern whatsoever. I'm not against the idea that human caused climate change exists...We're just not melting the ice fields.

I wouldn't say that it isn't cause for concern becuase those ice fields provide water for large populations when they melt. However, i would say they aren't the greatest evidence of global warming seeing as they used to cover half the continent and those all disappeared before we started dicking around with the climate.

[Cowboy89]

I think the article taken in context is an important lesson in history. Just because all the tide of public opinion moves one way doesn't necessarily make them correct. It reminds me of the Tech bubble. Everyone and their brother believed that fundamental earnings analysis was a thing of the past and the internet age was a watermark of a "Paradigm shift" in the financial markets. Time of course proved that the more things change the more they stay the same. Let this story be a caution to global warming alarmism. I'm not saying that the proponents of the man-made global warming theory are wrong, but we do have a duty to constantly pressure them to continually refine their thesis and their efforts without the dogma of the day getting in the way.

[Daradon]

^^^ Good solid post. I'm just a little confused because, this story may not really have anything to do what's going on now. There could have been a cooling then, which was popular theory and TRUE. And there could be a man made warming now (which is actually, staving off this cooling).

Both could be true.

The tech bubble example is a good example where popular theory WAS wrong, but there were many experts warning against the idea of a complete paradigm shift.

And in reality, there was a huge shift, and there still is. It's just not total and absolute like many thought or hoped it would be. But technology, business, and the world has changed, and is still in a state of change. As an example, you and I wouldn't be talking about these ideas here (an internet messageboard) 10 years ago, or probably even in the boom of 2000.

[Bobblehead]

In addition, how much has been learned about the climate in the last 34 years?

The worlds largest supercomputers are being created to attempt climate simulations. If the worlds biggest/fastest computers today are still evolving to attempt to better understand the climate, the modeling they did 34 years ago using those systems would have been absolutely archaic by today's standards.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

In addition, how much has been learned about the climate in the last 34 years?

The worlds largest supercomputers are being created to attempt climate simulations. If the worlds biggest/fastest computers today are still evolving to attempt to better understand the climate, the modeling they did 34 years ago using those systems would have been absolutely archaic by today's standards.

And 34 years from now we can be saying the same thing about Global Warming....Also computers can do things faster than humans that is about it...the predictions they make are based on models developed by Humans, if the model isn't correct, neither is the computer. Although i am not sure how you can come up with a suitable model for climate when we barely understand it to begin with, So the chance of error is pretty great.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

And 34 years from now we can be saying the same thing about Global Warming....

MAY be saying. But I doubt it. I think there is enough empirical and circumstantial evidence to see we are on the right track. I'm sure we don't know everything about it, or can track it as accurately as we like, but the best minds on the planet seem to be in agreement on this one. Only those that need to reform their business or their lifestyle continue with opposition.

No, I think in 34 years we'll be saying, 'oh crap' because we won't have accurately prepared or started the energy and lifestyle changes we should be starting now.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

In addition, how much has been learned about the climate in the last 34 years?

The worlds largest supercomputers are being created to attempt climate simulations. If the worlds biggest/fastest computers today are still evolving to attempt to better understand the climate, the modeling they did 34 years ago using those systems would have been absolutely archaic by today's standards.

Exactly, what we know today compared to then is incredible.

Back then visible pollutants which were a massive problem world wide were causing what is called global dimming, because of the reflective nature of reflective pollutants.

There has been this push/pull between global dimming and warming for quite some time, however recent data shows dimming's affect is diminishing slowly while the greenhouse effect is increasing in speed. Obviously one is increasing the other as we clean up our reflective pollutants with better controls on industrial pollution and advances in technology.

There is of course another thing to the ice age, being that the Greenland ice sheet could cause the stall in the north Atlantic 'motor' which if stalls would bring about a new ice age. Thats why scientists are so worried especially about Greenland's ice sheet and why global warming is a period that seems be the trigger to start the ice age.

Now obviously human impact is having an affect on all of this, how much is about the only debate on it. The sad thing is IF our effect is that significant we could be reaching a tipping point in possibly our lifetime or our children's lifetime that will bring about the start of an ice age.

I do have confidence however in human ingenuity to solve or deal with problems, I just hope we stop the petty bickering and figure out where to go from here.

[Cowboy89]

To add to my earlier point I think we should avoid thinking that we really and truly live in a Hallmark era of human knowledge, technology, and ability. It's truly dangerous to come out and claim that while 34 years ago we weren't able to make an accurate prediction about climate due to primative theory and technology, but now we do because in the meantime we've reached the watershed of enlightenment required not only to identify the problem, but to quantify, and solve it. Afterall I bet in 1974 proponents of the cooling theory could have made the same remarks about an era 34 years prior. Many great civilizations have fallen due arrogance placed in their perception of their society's status of human advancement.

Moving back to the tech bubble example and with reference to those who cautioned the beliefs of the new paradigm shift. Back in 1996 those voices would have been profoundly more difficult to hear than today. Those who had the contrarian view back then were the ones who were able to write the history books and the finance textbooks for future generations ex-ante. While history as written by them does a good job of explaining what happened it also tends to glorify their own personal role while it happened.

Furthermore, many people who were silent or otherwise on the sidelines back then emerged later claiming they knew better all along. Ask a French person who was an adult living in France during the second world war. I bet most of them claim to have been part of the resistance. Had Germany retained control of France for generations after the 1940s I'm sure many of those same people who claimed to be resistors would have claimed to have been stallwart supporters of Nazi Germany.

Decades from now should many of today's predictions be proven inaccurate many "Other opinions" of our day will be 're-told' and glorified to paint the perception that it was only a few powerfull idiots who wanted to wreck the world economy based on faulty science. Someone will be scapegoated, likely whoever is the President of the United States when said economy goes/went sour and things will move on from there. Should UN IPCC predictions be proven correct the so-called 'Deniers' will downplay some of the words they said or explain an alternative revisionist reality where what they did say can somehow be reconciled to what happened. Look no further than David Suzuki, he was one of those who championed the global cooling theory 34 years ago. Ie "The warming related to this crisis overpowered the cooling trend"

[Daradon]

^^^ That's all very true, but it's just as dangerous to use arguments like that to sit on the fence or go with the status quo. People need to make their voices heard on important matters. Like your example about people staying silent in the 1940's emerging as resistors. The true heroes would be the ones who did speak up or take action.

Bringing us to the 'global warming debate', people NEED to speak up. Think about it, even if those who say mankind is responsible, and we will soon approach crisis conditions if nothing is done, are wrong, it doesn't really hurt for us to try and clean up our act.

We know we are polluting too much, we know we are wasting too much. This hurts us in other ways from population crunch to yes, even the economy.

Oil wouldn't cost so much if we didn't use so damn much of it.

So we have to stop looking at it as economics vs environment and just start looking at it as a global lifestyle shift.

Heat wave or ice age or not, we need to become more efficient and less wasteful in how we do things. We need different forms of energy, we need significant lifestyle and business practice changes, global warming or not.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Daradon;1356408
[B

So we have to stop looking at it as economics vs environment and just start looking at it as a global lifestyle shift.[/B]

I wonder how many people are going to die/suffer as a result of our proposed 'solutions' to global warming vs. how many would die/suffer as a result of global warming. That's a more important perspective. Then of course there's the "Epic fail" scenerio where we kill the world's economy but fail to stop global warming because all it takes to compensate the other way for the world's sacrifices is a non-cooperating China and a foot-dragging United States and Third World. Then you'll get to see how many people die and/or suffer if both scenarios played out at the same time.

Ruining the world's economy isn't something you just do because it's fun or as some kind of contingency plan for an unpredictable future. Even doing something as simple and small as subsidize ethanol production has already caused food shortages and added an unecessary wrinkle into the world economy. If I'm going to vote for or take part in anything that "combats" global warming that also has some negative side effects, it's going to be because I have better information to go on than a bunch of computer model jockies supported by government grants.

[Azure]

We are already seeing a lifestyle shift Daradon. No doubt about that.

And I doubt you'll find anyone that disagrees that polluting, waste, stuff like that isn't BAD for our environment. It is....no doubt about that either.

The problem I have is when NASA scientists come out and tell everyone that we have 20 years to 'change' or we're all going to die. That wouldn't be the same NASA that had their data skewed, to make it look like 1998 was the warmest year on record when it really wasn't?

Yeah, that might explain why I have a hard time trusting people who act like global warming can be simply reversed or 'stopped' if we suddenly change our ways.

Just 3 years ago, I remember arguing with people who thought that the science was in, global warming WAS our fault. Look how much has changed in those 3 years. Even WITH the greatest technology, and the most knowledgeable minds we can find.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

To add to my earlier point I think we should avoid thinking that we really and truly live in a Hallmark era of human knowledge, technology, and ability. It's truly dangerous to come out and claim that while 34 years ago we weren't able to make an accurate prediction about climate due to primative theory and technology, but now we do because in the meantime we've reached the watershed of enlightenment required not only to identify the problem, but to quantify, and solve it. Afterall I bet in 1974 proponents of the cooling theory could have made the same remarks about an era 34 years prior. Many great civilizations have fallen due arrogance placed in their perception of their society's status of human advancement.

Comparing what we know today to 34 years ago regarding science, even specifically in climate research, is a massive leap in what we have learned. If you like you say go 64 years that leap is even that more dramatic, not as much for those 34 years ago looking back another 34 however.

Its the pace of how much we learn, in all fields of science and technology the speed of knowledge is increasing in pace. Since the start of the computer era we are increasing human knowledge at astounding speed in comparison to all of human history before it.

Many civilizations have fallen due to arrogance, hmm well until the last 50-80 years no civilization has had a hint of the knowledge we have discovered in this time and not to mention no civilization before ours has had the power to do so much damage to the world as ours has.

I think the key in this muddy issue, is simplicity.

Look at specific things we can do to decrease our impact on the earth, find solutions and even create new jobs working to solve problems.

Every single CP debate on the environment ends up as rhetoric on both sides, where you either fear the end is nigh or that we should just do nothing since you can't trust science!

Its not useful, and you'd think we could pick specific issues that are worth looking into and debating, future of the automobile, future energy sources, removing need for oil/gas by technological advances, etc..

No reasonable person, and thats the majority of the people in this debate, want to do harm to the world economy. We do not want to put jobs in jeopardy or cause other harm.

The idea is to collectively find solutions that we can achieve and will benefit the world and won't be destructive to our economies.

Plus wouldn't hurt if we stopped stupid projects like bio fuels dead in its tracks right now before we cause more people to starve.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Daradon

MAY be saying. But I doubt it. I think there is enough empirical and circumstantial evidence to see we are on the right track.

and they were probably saying that 34 years ago.

[troutman]

the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo

Is that the canary in the coal mine? Where are the armadillos going?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I wonder how many people are going to die/suffer as a result of our proposed 'solutions' to global warming vs. how many would die/suffer as a result of global warming. That's a more important perspective. Then of course there's the "Epic fail" scenerio where we kill the world's economy but fail to stop global warming because all it takes to compensate the other way for the world's sacrifices is a non-cooperating China and a foot-dragging United States and Third World. Then you'll get to see how many people die and/or suffer if both scenarios played out at the same time.

Ruining the world's economy isn't something you just do because it's fun or as some kind of contingency plan for an unpredictable future. Even doing something as simple and small as subsidize ethanol production has already caused food shortages and added an unecessary wrinkle into the world economy. If I'm going to vote for or take part in anything that "combats" global warming that also has some negative side effects, it's going to be because I have better information to go on than a bunch of computer model jockies supported by government grants.

That is such a short term way of looking at things.

The economy will recover. There was a time before oil, there will be a time after.

The point driving economy is supposed to be innovation.

Not oligopolies and lobbyists.

Even if in a big shift there are some hard times they will last for a generation. If we don't fix our bigger problems with climate and overpopulation, they will last for the rest of our being on this planet.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Daradon

That is such a short term way of looking at things.

The economy will recover. There was a time before oil, there will be a time after.

The point driving economy is supposed to be innovation.

Not oligopolies and lobbyists.

Even if in a big shift there are some hard times they will last for a generation. If we don't fix our bigger problems with climate and overpopulation, they will last for the rest of our being on this planet.

Oh okay people dying is actually a solution to the problem of both overpopulation and climate change in your eyes. Good call, self imposed genocide of people who cannot afford to live in a dramatically receeding world economy is the solution! So I guess I'm the immoral one by valueing their lives and not willing to risk them in the near term to solve a problem we are not actually able to quantify let alone solve.

BTW, the geology of oil and expanding economies in India and China are already doing enough to drive us into a post fossil fuel world with a peaking level of population. As the developing world develops, their fertility rates are dropping as well. The less agricultural a society the lower the fertility rates. So much so that developed countries often have a fertility rate at much less than replacement. The higher the price of energy and fuel will equate to people having less kids for economic reasons. In agricultural socities having an additional child improves your economic lot by providing additional labor to improve production. In an industrial economy it's another mouth to feed and in a high cost fuel and food world there will be less children.