An article giving strong evidence of global warming (from 1948)

The useful conclusions from this have nothing to do with the correctness of this paper’s data, reasoning, or conclusions.

(1) Anthropological global warming (AGW, caused by us) is more difficult to prove than global warming

The data showed clear indications of global warming in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Hence the difficulty of demonstrating AGW as a substantial driver of current warming, since the natural warming trend was established before massive global industrialization. Proving causation requires more than showing a trend, since the trend was already there. This is a repeated fallacy of general media articles about global warming (but not, of course, of the climate science literature).

The inconvenient truth about 19th and 20th century warming is omitted from many “educational” articles and movies, along with any mention of past climatic swings. Doing so makes it easier to arouse fears about AGW by exploiting the public’s ignorance of history and logic. AGW can be proven by appealing to post hoc ergo propter hoc — if industrialization preceded warming, then industrialization must have caused warming. This is a wonderful use of propaganda: false fact used to support false logic.

oh, phulllezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

enough of this nonsense. If God wants the planet to warm up then there is not a damn thing you, me or anyone else can do about it!

We are at WAR! And there are a BILLION people out there who want you, me and everyone else in this country who isn’t a Muslim D...E...A...D!

to hell with the polar bears, caribou and “global warming!”
polar bears & caribou don’t pay the bills ‘round here!
The clowns in D.C. need to “get off the dime” and do what they should have done after the oil embargoes of the seventies! DRILL HERE! DRILL NOW! so we aren’t dependent on a bunch of camel jockeys who HATE OUR GUTS!

Does anyone still not get the point! hellooooooooooooooooo...

Hee hee hee

“... Based on his calculations, in 1896, [Svante] Arrhenius predicted that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would raise Earth’s average temperature by about 5°C (Arrhenius 1896). But he estimated that it would take humans about 1,000 years to release that much carbon dioxide; and if we did, he and other scientists speculated that the effect would merely prolong the growing season at higher latitudes—a change that would benefit humans, and farmers in particular.

Although his calculations were surprisingly accurate, Arrhenius greatly underestimated the rate at which humans would produce carbon dioxide. Over the last 100 years, carbon dioxide levels have already risen by 23 percent. Yet, scientists haven’t seen a corresponding rise in temperature (average global temperatures have risen only about 0.5°C, smaller than Arrhenius’ expectation by a factor of 2 or 3). Why is this? Because there are many more variables that influence climate than Arrhenius’ model took into consideration.

See charts here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Modeling/

bttt

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former CEO of the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute: “I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society.”

QUOTE: “..There are by now a few dozen such models in the world, but they are not entirely independent of one another, often sharing common pieces of computer code and common ancestors.” ~ Kerry Emmanuel MIT

QUOTE: “..The problem here is that many important processes are much smaller than these scales. For example, cumulus clouds in the atmosphere are critical for transferring heat and water upward and downward, but they are typically only a few miles across and so cannot be simulated by the climate models. ... there are not too many ways to test the model, and projections of future climates must necessarily involve a degree of faith. “ ~ Kerry Emmanuel MIT

QUOTE: “... all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models.

Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests.

They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.

The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.

It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”.... Freeman Dyson, (8/8/07) http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

QUOTE: “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models” (Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office)

QUOTE: “The climate modelers have been cheating for so long it’s almost become respectable” (Richard Kerr, discussing adjustments in climate models, Science 1997)

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Scammers need a crisis in order to scare the gullible into being willing to give up more of their freedoms and pay higher taxes . Global warming took over where Y2K left off. bttt

Follow the links before jumping to conclusions. This paper was written in 1948!

It didn't blame man (i.e., no AGW). That would have been seen as silly in 1948. Read the conclusion...

If we find in the Antarctic similar evidence of the present climatic fluctuation as has been found in other parts of the world, we shall be justified in concluding that the present fluctuation is a world-wide phenomenon and probably the result of variations in solar activity which, slow as they may be to take effect, are actually resulting in an improvement in the climate of our world.

The publication date is October - December of 1948. And yes, he sees global warming as beneficial to humanity. Why do we find this strange? Throughout history cooling has been the malefactor, associated with crop failures and plagues. Warming, while often disruptive (like any change), means better growing conditions for most areas. People die from overheating in the summer, but far more die from freezing in winter.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.