Doom warnings: The 1970's Ice Age scare...

[Narz]

Also...

If the current climate change predictions are wrong... we have NOTHING to lose.

If the current climate change predictions are right... we have EVERYTHING to lose.

I'm not going to take that risk.

With or without climate change, we need a cleaner world.

Well said.

In my past life (I was a warrior in the Roman Legion) I knew this doomer fellow who predicted Rome's great empire was unsustainable. I laughed in his face as his predictions were proved WRONG over and over and we defended against hostile Northern invaders. He even claimed that within a few centuries the empire's great heart (Rome) would be reduced from 1,000,000 to a mere 10,000 people. What a goof!

 

[Bill3000]

Some scientiests 40 years ago predicted something that didn't happen. Therefore, we can ignore climate change.

Let's not prance around the issue...this is the point of the thread right? Craaaap.

Mmm, while that's absolutely some of the conclusions some of the repliers to this thread have made, (Mobboss in particular) it's not the point of the OP, which showed that the entire idea that "scientists believed there was an ice age coming soon" hysteria wasn't even true to begin with.

 

[Narz]

Mmm, while that's absolutely some of the conclusions some of the repliers to this thread have made, (Mobboss in particular) it's not the point of the OP, which showed that the entire idea that "scientists believed there was an ice age coming soon" hysteria wasn't even true to begin with.

A boy named Bill was mean to me in first grade, therefore you're a jerk and what you say shouldn't be trusted!

 

[FriendlyFire]

I call that fear mongering. Are todays conditions similiar to those in 1918? Hell no. Has health care vastly improved? Hell yes.

You must not appease dictators least we have another hitler
Smoking gun mushroom clouds
Danger is growing
The world must act

etc etc etc

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Doom warnings are almost always inheritly wrong, and is one of the reasons I refuse to get all panicky about global warming.

You're from Yakima, right?

It may interest you to know that 10,000 years ago Yakima was buried under 3 km of solid ice. There was permafrost in northern Germany. The ice was so thick that many coastal North European stone age villages are now far inland simply due to the land rising as the weight of snow decreases through melting.

That's not really that long ago. A minute, geologically speaking.

So my point is that what you call "doom warnings" are going to have to get a whole lot more hyperbolic before I start calling them implausible.

Non-scientists seem to be possessed by either the idea that the Earth was always like it is today and always will be, or that "the Earth will balance itself out." Neither is true. Which means warnings have a lot more weight.

In the 60s and 70s, scientists discovered that ice ages and glaciation periods come in cycles caused by LONG TERM factors, and that we are currently in an "interglacial period" which means we're due for more ice soon. The media reported this as "ZOMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO FREEZE TO DEATH."

In the following decades, scientists studied SHORT TERM factors like CO2 and aerosols which are causing an increasing warming effect due to the greenhouse effect. These are demonstrably warming the planet. The media reported this as "ZOMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO BOIL."

The "big picture" we have now is that the earth would be cooling without our interference, but we are introducing large short-term warming factors. These two do not balance: rather, the Earth is getting very warm very fast because our interference has been so severe.

There is no contradiction in the science, as the OP makes clear. The contradiction is in media coverage.

However, just because the media sensationalizes things, doesn't mean there's nothing to be concerned about. Your blase and dismissive attitude is worrying, if it's common. The real scientists think this is Bad Stuff, and so should you.

 

[MobBoss]

You're from Yakima, right?

It may interest you to know that 10,000 years ago Yakima was buried under 3 km of solid ice. There was permafrost in northern Germany. The ice was so thick that many coastal North European stone age villages are now far inland simply due to the land rising as the weight of snow decreases through melting.

Nope. Not from Yakima. However, it may interest you that in millenia past, Yakima has been covered by an inland sea and also jungle.

Your point?

That's not really that long ago. A minute, geologically speaking.

My watch is not set to 'geologic time'.

So my point is that what you call "doom warnings" are going to have to get a whole lot more hyperbolic before I start calling them implausible.

/shrug.

Non-scientists seem to be possessed by either the idea that the Earth was always like it is today and always will be, or that "the Earth will balance itself out." Neither is true. Which means warnings have a lot more weight.

Non-scientists like Oprah say a lot of incorrect crap as well.

In the 60s and 70s, scientists discovered that ice ages and glaciation periods come in cycles caused by LONG TERM factors, and that we are currently in an "interglacial period" which means we're due for more ice soon. The media reported this as "ZOMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO FREEZE TO DEATH."

In the following decades, scientists studied SHORT TERM factors like CO2 and aerosols which are causing an increasing warming effect due to the greenhouse effect. These are demonstrably warming the planet. The media reported this as "ZOMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO BOIL."

The "big picture" we have now is that the earth would be cooling without our interference, but we are introducing large short-term warming factors. These two do not balance: rather, the Earth is getting very warm very fast because our interference has been so severe.

Sorry, but I think it mere hubris for us to think we exert that much control over our weather and climate. I think people are having an effect, but to describe it as 'very warm, very fast and severe" is again, fearmongering.

However, just because the media sensationalizes things, doesn't mean there's nothing to be concerned about. Your blase and dismissive attitude is worrying, if it's common. The real scientists think this is Bad Stuff, and so should you.

Actually, it is precisely because media and people sensationalize things to always be far worse than they are. Oh...and I like your label that only 'real scientists' think the way you do.

 

[bigfatron]

Doom warnings are almost always inheritly wrong, and is one of the reasons I refuse to get all panicky about global warming.

Does anyone remember Oprah ranting about the AIDs epidemic and claiming something like more than 80 million people would be dead of it by 1990?

Wrong.

Oprah and the Mad Cow disease scare? Wrong.

Bird flu? Wrong.

The population bomb? Wrong.

Etc. etc. etc.

Well, if Oprah is your source of scientific information, then I think we're done

 

[El_Machinae]

Sorry, but I think it mere hubris for us to think we exert that much control over our weather and climate. I think people are having an effect, but to describe it as 'very warm, very fast and severe" is again, fearmongering.

Seriously, have you seen how much fossil CO2 we pump out, relative to how much is generated via regular biomass respiration? Have you seen photos of the Earth at night, showing how much industrialization has spread?

What 'climate change worry' are you refusing to believe? The one with the hockey stick spike in the 2020s, or the one that states that we might get a 6*C increase over the next century? Currently, the scientists are talking about the model that the temperature increases six degrees; and the outlook from even that looks like something we don't want to happen.

The reason why there's impetus to act now is that now is when something proactive should be done about the potential problem. Since the problem is predicted to have escalating effects (or compounding effects), nipping it in the bud is the most logical option.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, if Oprah is your source of scientific information, then I think we're done

Oh, she is not MY source of information - but that which comes out of her mouth is considered gospel by many.

Have you forgotten the hit the beef industry took just because she made a comment about mad cow disease in America?

Thats what I am referring to.

 

[MobBoss]

Seriously, have you seen how much fossil CO2 we pump out, relative to how much is generated via regular biomass respiration? Have you seen photos of the Earth at night, showing how much industrialization has spread?

What 'climate change worry' are you refusing to believe? The one with the hockey stick spike in the 2020s, or the one that states that we might get a 6*C increase over the next century? Currently, the scientists are talking about the model that the temperature increases six degrees; and the outlook from even that looks like something we don't want to happen.

The reason why there's impetus to act now is that now is when something proactive should be done about the potential problem. Since the problem is predicted to have escalating effects (or compounding effects), nipping it in the bud is the most logical option.

I am all for doing what they can to cut down on pollutants and such. All for it. However, I dont think it will do much good to be honest. There is just too much diversity in the world, and guys like Chavez or Amadina-whackjob will merely give the rest of the world the finger if they believe its not the right decision to do so for their country.

Bottom line, I put my faith in humans ability to adapt regardless of what happens. Thats why I dont worry. That, and the fact that this planet has been both much warmer than it currently is and much colder than it currently is and mankind is still around.

 

[brennan]

guys like Chavez or Amadina-whackjob will merely give the rest of the world the finger if they believe its not the right decision to do so for their country.

Sounds remarkably like the US attitude.

 

[MobBoss]

Sounds remarkably like the US attitude.

I dont deny that at all either. Countries will always act in their own self-interest. I didnt say it was wrong now did I? I think its just a mere point of fact.

 

[El_Machinae]

Like with all externatilies, I believe it to be better (long term) if the externality gets captured early, instead of forcing adapting behaviour later.

The hit to our global economy will be much higher if we just suffer through increasing CO2 levels, instead of reversing them. Infrastructure changes alone would be stupidly expensive relative to the cost of cutting CO2 emissions. Never mind the loss of productivity from migrating workforces, and re-settling industries in (newly) idealised areas.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Nope. Not from Yakima. However, it may interest you that in millenia past, Yakima has been covered by an inland sea and also jungle.

Your point?

May I repeat it? "What you call 'doom warnings' are going to have to get a whole lot more hyperbolic before I start calling them implausible."

In the VERY RECENT past the earth's climate has altered drastically due to far smaller fluctuations in longer term factors than what we are doing to the Earth today. Therefore, your denial ("it would be mere hubris to think that we can have an effect") is voided by historical fact.

Non-scientists like Oprah say a lot of incorrect crap as well.

Who tf dragged Oprah into this anyway? Whoever it is, can he please drag her back out again?

Your argument essentially boils down to: if Oprah says that electrons have a negative charge, we should doubt it, 'cuz OPRAH SAID IT LOL. Well, physicists can't control what talkshow hosts say, and neither can climatologists.

 

[Quasar1011]

If the current climate change predictions are right... we have EVERYTHING to lose.

Not everyone believes we have everything to lose.

Climate Challenge Will Heat Up Global Economy, Barclays Predicts

 

[BasketCase]

My conclusion is that I would recommend everyone take a good look around before accepting any contentions from media commentary on either side of the debate.

That's all I've been askin' for.

 

[brennan]

Not everyone believes we have everything to lose.

Climate Challenge Will Heat Up Global Economy, Barclays Predicts

Unless i'm mistaken the premise is that this trend will continue: "All of the historical changes in energy supply - from dung to wood to coal to oil - were stimulative for the economy concerned. Every major technological change was accompanied or followed by faster economic growth."

However, all these prior changes were to a more efficient fuel. If the next step was another increase in efficiency, we would have changed already...

 

[MrCynical]

Not everyone believes we have everything to lose.

Climate Challenge Will Heat Up Global Economy, Barclays Predicts

If you actually read the article, what it basically says is that each time in the past that the main energy supply has changed (in each case to a more efficient source), the economy was stimulated. However, other than winning an award for stating the obvious, this isn't a useful piece of information. If we had a more (or even equally) efficient energy source to switch to from oil, we wouldn't have a problem, and as Brennan points out we'd already have done so.

The mere fact that some bank has said that an energy revolution will happen does not make it so (or even possible). The article, while purporting to be about climate change, also has nothing really concerning that. It makes no kind of allowance for the damage cause by climate change, or that our current oil dependency is only one component of that.

 

[Swedishguy]

Many people sincerily believe that the world will end 2012 because of the aztec calender...

Shall we mention that in 2013, SHALL WE?

It's the same thing about this Ice Age hypothesis.