Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 09/24/2011 6:17:56 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
NEW YORK -Tucked between treatises on algae and prehistoric turquoise beads, the study on page 460 of a long-ago issue of the U.S. journal Science drew little attention.
"I don't think there were any newspaper articles about it or anything like that," the author recalls.
But the headline on the 1975 report was bold: "Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" And this article that coined the term may have marked the last time a mention of "global warming" didn't set off an instant outcry of angry denial.—
EDITOR'S NOTE: Climate change has already provoked debate in a U.S. presidential campaign barely begun. An Associated Press journalist draws on decades of climate reporting to offer a retrospective and analysis on global warming and the undying urge to deny.—
In the paper, Columbia University geoscientist Wally Broecker calculated how much carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere in the coming 35 years, and how temperatures consequently would rise. His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct. Meanwhile, other powerful evidence poured in over those decades, showing the "greenhouse effect" is real and is happening. And yet resistance to the idea among many in the U.S. appears to have hardened.
What's going on?
"The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton.
He and others who track what they call "denialism" find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democratic gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses climate scientists of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. election campaign.
Da sky is falling! Da sky is falling! If you don't hurry up, it fall right on you haid! Follow me!
Glo-bull Smarming is a failed effort to redistribute wealth...mainly from the US taxpayers.
It’s global lying, not warming.
Aside from the fact that the whole theory is nonsense, could it be that, since then, global warming has been used as a pretext to rob us of our freedoms, legacy, independence, wealth and lifestyle choice?....just saying...
I hope Lord Monckton writes a rebuttal to this nonsense.
I’ve been a subscriber of the journal Science for years (although, I admit, I didn’t subscribe back in 1976).
I have yet to see that overwhelming quantity of evidence of global warming documented in Science or elsewhere.
The evidence I have seen to date consists mostly of the description of a study, with the words “because of global warming” stuck somewhere in the discussion of why the study authors may have obtained the results they did. But I have not yet seen a hypothesis-driven demonstration of anthropogenic global warming.
The real threat is global mating. Mt. Everest is growing bigger as Saturn shakes her rings at Earth, arousing it. Soon Earth will make its move, and then it’s all over. Millions will perish as the two planets copulate.
They lie as usual. The paper which I just downloaded predicts 0.7 degrees of increase between 1980 and 2010. The satellite record, our most accurate measurement, shows less than 1/2 that much rise.
Global Warming on Free Republic
No, the desire to disbelieve deepens when the most vocal proponents of Global Warming live the most blatantly hypocritical, oppulent, resource/energy-consuming lifestyles.
This article is short on facts concerning the original article, the one which forms the author’s jumping off point for his tirade.
He basically just reiterates the global warming dogma and blasts the “deniers”. He uses consensus (”98% of scientists”) to say that deniers are in the minority. He doesn’t say where this comes from, but instead quotes an “authority”.
He doesn’t make room for the fact that minority opinions sometimes turn out to be right. In fact, he starts out saying that global warming was a minority view when it was first proposed, and no one listened. Ironic.
1. Is the mean global temperature operationally defined as the satellite-measured lower tropospheric temperature? I tend to think Broecker wasn't addressing the lower troposphere because satellite measurements of that variable didn't start until 3 years later.
2. Does this statement define the error bar range? "Although surprises may yet be in store for us when larger computers and a better knowledge of cloud physics allow the next stage of the modeling to be accomplished, the magnitude of the CO2 effect has probably been pinned down to within a factor of 2 to 4"
Thanks for indicating how easy it was to find the paper.
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.