PDA

View Full Version : Global Cooling SPOILERS!



Ethan Van Sciver
03-28-2007, 02:07 PM
OH NOES!

The Cooling World

By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree — a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras — and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 — years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases — all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”

Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Shane W
03-28-2007, 02:09 PM
Great,

Perhaps we should use 1975 science for you if you need a medical procedure too huh?

Ethan Van Sciver
03-28-2007, 02:11 PM
I'm just catching up on my environmental alarmist reading....How did this turn out?

Ethan Van Sciver
03-28-2007, 02:12 PM
Great,

Perhaps we should use 1975 science for you if you need a medical procedure too huh?

They used 1974 medical procedures to get me here. I s'pose it'd be alright. ;-)

Shane W
03-28-2007, 02:12 PM
I'm just catching up on my environmental alarmist reading....How did this turn out?

About as good as that Harry Potter sketch.

d.j.
03-28-2007, 02:12 PM
Silly environment.

Ryan F
03-28-2007, 02:12 PM
They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.

This part was pretty funny. :lol: They might, huh?

Of course, it wouldn't have hurt to stockpile some food supplies. Just like it wouldn't hurt now to convert to renewable energy sources and increase efficiency.

Fake Pat
03-28-2007, 02:14 PM
This part was pretty funny. :lol: They might, huh?

Of course, it wouldn't have hurt to stockpile some food supplies. Just like it wouldn't hurt now to convert to renewable energy sources and increase efficiency.

ALARMIST!!!!

Khrutch
03-28-2007, 02:15 PM
Global warming is the new Global cooling. Y'know, like grey is the new black..or...something...

Brad N.
03-28-2007, 02:15 PM
Yeah, so that article is used by Rush Limbaugh and a ton of other righties to make fun of the actual Global Warming problem we have now. The thing is, that article was pretty well debunked and fringe even then when it came out, today it's even less relevant.

Ethan Van Sciver
03-28-2007, 02:16 PM
I think a year after I was born, it was the apex of the cooling trend...and then I started heating things up.

Feel my heat!

JBElliott
03-28-2007, 02:17 PM
I'm just catching up on my environmental alarmist reading....How did this turn out?

Go back a little further and you'll read that the Earth was flat. :D

Not quite as far back and you'll find that the Earth is the center of the Universe. (That one is close, it's really ME that's the center of the Universe.)

In the 1950's the Universe was thought to be in a "steady state" neither expanding nor contracting.

Turns out empirical observations overtuned all of those theories and they've been repalced by better theories that fit the data better. Well all of them accept me being the center of the Universe! :D

Right now the theory of global warming fits all of the observable experimental data better than any competing theory.

Seltzer Water
03-28-2007, 02:18 PM
Go back a little further and you'll read that the Earth was flat. :D

Not quite as far back and you'll find that the Earth is the center of the Universe. (That one is close, it's really ME that's the center of the Universe.)

In the 1950's the Universe was thought to be in a "steady state" neither expanding nor contracting.

Turns out empirical observations overtuned all of those theories and they've been repalced by better theories that fit the data better. Well all of them accept me being the center of the Universe! :D

Right now the theory of global warming fits all of the observable experimental data better than any competing theory.


have you read that Isaac Asimov essay on this, "The Relativity of Wrong?" Good reading about better theories and what not

Ethan Van Sciver
03-28-2007, 02:18 PM
Yeah, so that article is used by Rush Limbaugh and a ton of other righties to make fun of the actual Global Warming problem we have now. The thing is, that article was pretty well debunked and fringe even then when it came out, today it's even less relevant.

....And, Global Warming will be debunked too.

Spoiler alert from 2049:





"Yeah, so that article is used by Rush Limbaugh Jr. and a ton of other righties to make fun of the actual Global Splitting Into Tiny Pieces problem we have now. The thing is, that article was pretty well debunked and fringe even then when it came out, today it's even less relevant."

JBElliott
03-28-2007, 02:19 PM
OH NOES!

The Cooling World

By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree — a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras — and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 — years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases — all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”

Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Ack!!! You didn't hide it! Bad netiquette! :D

Fake Pat
03-28-2007, 02:25 PM
Go back a little further and you'll read that the Earth was flat. :D

Not quite as far back and you'll find that the Earth is the center of the Universe. (That one is close, it's really ME that's the center of the Universe.)

In the 1950's the Universe was thought to be in a "steady state" neither expanding nor contracting.

Turns out empirical observations overtuned all of those theories and they've been repalced by better theories that fit the data better. Well all of them accept me being the center of the Universe! :D

Right now the theory of global warming fits all of the observable experimental data better than any competing theory.

Stop trying to use logic. This is a Van Sciver thread.

Brad N.
03-28-2007, 02:39 PM
damn board.

Brad N.
03-28-2007, 02:40 PM
....And, Global Warming will be debunked too.

Spoiler alert from 2049:





"Yeah, so that article is used by Rush Limbaugh Jr. and a ton of other righties to make fun of the actual Global Splitting Into Tiny Pieces problem we have now. The thing is, that article was pretty well debunked and fringe even then when it came out, today it's even less relevant."

1) Again, that global cooling belief wasn't the prevailing theory then. That article was one of a few on the fringe while mainstream science did not feel that way at the time. It is more in line with today's group of wackos who get paid by Exxon/Mobil to write articles about the "myth" of Global Warming.

2) Heh. You think Rush will have kids. :lol:

Ethan Van Sciver
03-28-2007, 02:43 PM
Stop trying to use logic. This is a Van Sciver thread.

"Trying to use...!" You filthy peasant! I am completely aware of every point the honorable JBElliot is making, and it still doesn't invalidate the fact that these things come and go, and have for many, many years. This one will too. If anyone has logic on his side, it is I!!!

How dare you. :)

mario
03-28-2007, 02:46 PM
so, the fact that the average temperature here has gone up a complete degree celcius (okay, 0.9°) in the last 20 years is cooling down.

Oookay.

Foolish Mortal
03-28-2007, 02:55 PM
Did I miss something? When did Van Sciver get knighted? :scared:

Thudpucker
03-28-2007, 02:56 PM
"Ethan gets it now, folks! Do you?"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/thudpucker/db070114.gif

JBElliott
03-28-2007, 03:04 PM
"Trying to use...!" You filthy peasant! I am completely aware of every point the honorable JBElliot is making, and it still doesn't invalidate the fact that these things come and go, and have for many, many years. This one will too. If anyone has logic on his side, it is I!!!

How dare you. :)

Dude, thanks for the "honrable" but don't forget the extra "t" on Elliott. Without it I'm not the center of the Universe any more.

As for theories coming and going, better to err on the side of caution, if the theories of global warming are correct (as the appear to be) then things could get hot. Why not help the market get our collective butts out of the fire by inventing our way out of it? I'd be happy to buy a car that gets 100 mpg. It's time that better mouse traps were built.

As for logic, I've got it on "my side" too as well as loads of empirical data and scientific effort. Theories don't really come and go as easily as you may have been lead to believe. It took a long while for relativity to be accpected and now it's the most (successfully) tested theory of all time. Global warming has held up to a lot of scientific scrutiny so far and doesn't seem to be in any danger of being proven false.

Ethan Van Sciver
03-28-2007, 03:06 PM
"Ethan gets it now, folks! Do you?"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/thudpucker/db070114.gif

Oh, fuck off, boney Moroni! ;)

ZombieSpeedball
03-28-2007, 03:06 PM
Silly environment.

Temperature shifts are for kids.

Thudpucker
03-28-2007, 03:29 PM
Oh, fuck off, boney Moroni! ;)

:lol:

SethInAz
03-28-2007, 05:25 PM
When will the environment understand that Republicans are evil?

Ben
03-28-2007, 05:31 PM
This is a perfect example of why comic book artists shouldn't be in charge of interpreting scientific data.

SethInAz
03-28-2007, 05:35 PM
This is a perfect example of why comic book artists shouldn't be in charge of interpreting scientific data.

Or anyone on a comic book messageboard for that matter.

RebootedCorpse
03-28-2007, 05:38 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v385/silouan92/blog/Stupidity.jpg