• #17
    We have gone through dozens and dozens of climate predictions and changes just since 1895. A simple Google search will bring up hundreds of articles (going back to the 1800's) talking about global cooling and global warming over the past 150 years. NO one denies the climate is changing. Funny how the AGW crowd felt they had to change the title of their religion, when the earth wouldn't co-operate with their computer models.
  • #67
    There is a myth that scientists switched from the term "global warming" to "climate change" for some nefarious, political purpose. This real-time graph shows the use of the two phrases since 1970. Run it for yourself.

    The only known political call for changing the term came from Frank Luntz. See an interview of him.
    An image of his memo is about a third of the way down the page, with a link to a pdf of it.

    So the only known person to suggest a change from the term "global warming" to "climate change" is a past and current Republican political operative.
  • #14
    funny thing about climate change it seems like the epa,fine folks and those who give them enough money somehow they not longer pollute or leave a footprint even when nothing changes other that giving up money.

    so if we use our gov track record it seems if enough money changes hands it makes all things better.
  • #77
    Google Cuyahoga River, from Wikipeadia:

    "At least 13 fires have been reported on the Cuyahoga River, the first occurring in 1868.[12] The largest river fire in 1952 caused over $1 million in damage to boats and a riverfront office building.[13] Fires erupted on the river several times between the 1952 fire and June 22, 1969, when a river fire that day captured the attention of Time magazine, which described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays". The fire did eventually spark major changes as well as the article from Time, but in the immediate aftermath very little attention was given to the incident. Furthermore, the conflagration that sparked Time's outrage was in June 1969, but the pictures they displayed on the cover and as part of the article were from the much more dangerous 1952 fire. No pictures from the 1969 fire are known to exist.

    "The 1969 Cuyahoga River fire helped spur an avalanche of water pollution control activities, resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio
    Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). As a result, large point sources of pollution on the Cuyahoga have received significant attention from the OEPA in recent decades. These events are referred to in Randy Newman's 1972 song "Burn On," R.E.M.'s 1986 song "Cuyahoga," and Adam Again's 1992 song "River on Fire." Great Lakes Brewing Company of Cleveland, Ohio named their Burning River Pale Ale after the event."
  • #22
    I think it's interesting that Arrhenius's understood something over a hundred years , that conservatives s fail to grasp till this day...sad :0(
  • #25
    @happyhedon Not only Arrhenius, but all of science. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which raises the temperature at Earth's surface along with water vapor. It's a matter of well established physics in this day and age. Over a hundred years ago it was not. Arrhenius was one of the first physicists to understand the importance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Without their presence the Earth's surface temperature would be well below the freezing point of water and frozen over to nearly the equator!
  • #93
    @Russell797 With the Earth being 2/3 water what does water evaporation make?Is it CO2?That evaporation over time is that not an increase in greenhouse gas that happens to have a accumulative affect ?
  • #118
    The water falls back down as rain and snow. Water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere anywhere near as long as CO2 does.
  • #155
    @happyhedon How is it that a group hell bent on the destruction of the environment got labeled as "Conservative"?
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    Assuming climate change is happening and is directly and only caused by human activity, what do we expect the government to be able to do about it? Let's look at their track record, shall we?

    War On Drugs - Failed
    War On Poverty - Failed
    War On Terror - Failed

    Do we really believe that adding more bureaucratic morass on top of all that is already there will really work this time?
  • #48
    Who says that it's the only cause of climate change? Common sense should tell us that it's a contributing factor to any climate change, good or bad. The problem is, political bullshit won't allow common sense to rule. As far as the counter-productiveness of our sink hole government is concerned, getting rid of the system that adds employees without expecting an increase in results would be a good first step to solving all our climate change problems, as well as all our Federal and State issues.
  • #75
    World War II
    Man on Moon
    Eradication of polio
    Interstate Highway System
    National park system
    Tornado warnings and their early dissemination
  • #148
    @RobertsH None of those are even close to being the same league as the examples I mentioned. For one thing, they're all clearly defined objectives with fairly obvious paths to completion. For another thing, WWII led to decades of Cold War and a failing policy of global interventionism that has resulted in anti-American sentiment world wide and polio hasn't actually been eradicated - just significantly reduced.
  • #149
    @Ryunkin "would be a good first step to solving all our climate change problems"

    Indeed, the United States government is the largest polluter in the world.
  • #168
    @TheSaltMiner This has often been cited according to official statistics, but those statistics just don't make sense. China's neighbors have become visible recipients of their that country's polluting problems. For example, Thailand experiences a morning haze that makes visibility near impossible seven days of the week that drifts in from the north. The ocean waters abutting China are too polluted to fish, even though the Chinese and others are still fishing them. Chinese cities make LA look like a smog-free zone. People are dying of chemical ingestion, like they used to in my state, NJ, before a majority of our chemical plants either closed down of moved overseas. So how can China, which doesn't even have a semi-corrupt EPA to monitor pollution, be listed as the world's second largest polluter?

    One last piece of information to save yourself from the wrath of my magic fingers and keyboard. Don't think that because I disagree with you on this issue that I won't agree with you on many others. I'm not exactly a big fan of this insidious form of "capitalism" I call corporatism, so I'm not shilling for American corporations, if that's what a multinational corporation can still be labeled.
  • R Load more replies

  • #63
    Fossil fuel pollution whether or not it causes global warming is known to cause health problems in people, so that should be enough of a reason to try to limit it.
  • #39
    "At that time it was thought that human influences were insignificant in planet climate variance, compared to natural forces, such as solar activity and ocean circulation."

    For a lot of people, that is still true.

    It's really hard to grasp the effects of 7 billion people on the environment.

  • #100
    That's scary stuff, so it isn't surprising that so many are in denial. It's impossible to dispute the math.

    But what do to about it is the real question that no one wants to answer.
  • #113

    "what do to about it is the real question that no one wants to answer."

    That's because the answer is going to involve change, and for most of America, a reduction in the standard of living.
  • #133
    @Cincinnatus - You're sugar-coating it. The answer is going to have to include global population control. There is no other solution, either to global warming or to the problem of diminishing resources.
  • #136
    @Denizen_Kate @Cincinnatus

    Guess what...the two of you just defined UN Agenda 21.

    BTW, why wold reducing our standard of living do anything when you have China and India doing much more damage than we ever have? Until they sign, which will never happen, good luck with your efforts.
  • #170
    Population control doesn't have to be coerced.
    As living standards rise, and more women are given access to birth control, the population will control itself.
    But for living standards to rise for everyone, we will all have to lead very efficient lives in terms of water, food, and energy.
    Waste of any sort will have to become morally unacceptable.
  • R Load more replies

  • #28
    Sorry. Not that long ago we were warned that we were about to enter an error of global cooling possibly leading to a new ice age.
    I am not saying anything but there is reason to be skeptical. The topic is more political than anything else. It is possible we are going to have a prolonged period of warming caused by man's use of fossil fuels. But I want some of the true believers predictions to come true.
    The guru Gore the Gross has made several and he has been proven wrong on many of his absolute statements.
  • #65
    "Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions?"

    "Let's review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

    That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
    That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
    That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
    That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
    Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
    That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
    The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
    They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

    They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
    The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
    The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
    The expansion of the Hadley cells.
    The poleward movement of storm tracks.
    The rising of the troposphere and the effective radiating altitude.
    The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
    The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
    That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

    "Seventeen correct predictions? Looks like a pretty good track record to me.

    "Are there problems with the models, and areas where they haven't gotten it right yet? Sure there are. The double Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone which shows up in some coupled models, ENSO variability, insufficiently sensitive sea ice, diurnal cycles of moist convection, and the exact response of climate to clouds are all areas of ongoing research. But the models are still the best thing we have for climate prediction under different scenarios, and there is no reason at all to think they're getting the overall picture wrong."

    References to the prediction articles and to the confirmation articles are in the complete Web page from which I took the predictions above.
  • #70
    @RobertsH We will look at the North Pole this summer. It is supposed to be free of ice. We will also see if the Antarctic ice grows significantly again next summer. You can be a true believer. I do not mind. But I know this about those that claim things are settled science. Years pass and all of a sudden the settled science is proven wrong. This just happened. It was settled science that women should have regular mamograms. An article in the NY Times very recently just said it was wrong and breast self exam was smarter for most women.
    So I still say I want more evidence, and the evidence should be clear.
  • #78
    @fraps "Al Gore said the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2013."

    The "source" of this lie is Al Gore's Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 2007, in which he said;

    "Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it COULD be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as seven years."

    Two things of note, Gore said "could", not "would", and simple arithmetic shows that seven years from the date of the speech would be 2014, not 2013. Gore was referring to a paper by Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey that said, "Autumn COULD become near ice free between 2011 and 2016."
  • R Load more replies

  • #11
    It is pretty impressive that he came to these results about 100yrs before the rest of climatologists and other scientists started raising a ruckus about climate change due to industrialization.
  • #15
    That's simply not true. You don't understand the history. As a scientist who speaks out on this issue you need to better inform yourself. There is nothing at all new regarding our understanding of the physical basis for AGW.
  • #7
    There were just as many saying we're heading for a mini ice age. Looks like they're the ones who were right.
    The problem with "global warming" is it's an opinion and not a proven fact. Climate is affected by too many unpredictable overlapping and parallel causes. The Earth responds to changes in energy no matter the cause, natural or manmade. Cause and effect. That's a basic law of physics, but other sciences are involved too. The specialized fields don't speak to each other, they're not qualified to predict the future either.
  • #13
    Chicken Little Then - Chicken Little Now..
    Again, when someone can tell everyone what the temp should be in every location- every hour, of every day and how to control it-- then you can address 'man-made' climate change.
  • #18
    I'm still waiting on scientist to explain the black hole our entire solar system orbits. Why are we orbiting a black hole, orbiting the sun, which also orbits the hole. What is the deal with that and how does that fit in with the big bang theory.
  • #64
    No so. The great global cooling myth:
    "But a new article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society challenges the idea of a ‘global cooling ’ consensus. Thomas Peterson of NOAA teamed with William Connolley of the British Antarctic survey and science reporter John Fleck to create a survey of peer-reviewed climate literature from the 1970s. Looking at every paper that dealt with climate change projections or an aspect of climate forcing from 1965 to 1979, they were able to assess the ‘trends’ in the literature. They found that only 7 of the 71 total papers surveyed predicted global cooling. The vast majority (44) actually predicted that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming."
  • R Load more replies

  • #124
    But of course, the deniers will ignore that because it was cold on the East Coast of the US. Nevermind that the eastern 1/3 or so of the US and a small swath of northern Siberia were the ONLY PLACES ON EARTH that didn't have above-average temperatures for January. Those are facts, and facts are something the global warming deniers can't stand.
  • #60
    I actually remembered this guy's name from Chemistry class, and not because of his climate change prediction, which I didn't know about. This guy is one of the Chemistry greats.
  • #117
    But but but Al Gore!

    The sad thing is, the deniers really DO think that Gore made up global warming even though it was predicted before his father was born
  • #190
    And since then they also predicted a couple of ice ages along with global warming. All Arrhenius did was start the science fad of the industrial age. This was a godsend to the Luddite movement which was looking for anything and everything to blame on technology. Now we have environmentalist trotting out old solutions and touting them as new ones. Predictions of ecological doom have been predicted repeatedly with the dates passing one after another to only have someone else predict a new end of the world date. Of doom that will come to pass unless we change our ways.

    The truly sad thing is how many in each generation are fooled by the exact same thing. Already, the next ice age crowd is gaining in popularity. Soon, they will be here declaring you to be a denier because you refuse to believe the world will end in ice instead of fire.
  • #217
    The only "next ice age crowd" are the people who want to deny the actual science of global warming.
  • #228
    @Cal And they would want to say that you would only want to deny the actual science of global cooling. Given that they also have scientific studies to prove their point, scientist who have publically come out in support of this, climate statistics according to them also support there point of view.

    They are a mirror image of you. They believe in global cooling like you believe in global warming, including the very same causes and solutions.
  • #233
    There IS NO "actual science of global cooling." The claims of global cooling is anti-science. They do NOT have scientific studies to support their claims. There are NO climate statistics supporting their point of view.

    Global warming isn't a matter of belief. Facts are still facts even if you refuse to believe them. All of the data proves that global warming is happening.
  • R Load more replies

  • #191
    Actually, many of them are starting to come out as global ice age groupies. In irony, many of them were once global ice age groupies then switched to global warming.

    The cause according to them is still the same, man, fossil fuels. The solutions will be the same, wind, solar, electric cars.
  • #35
    The great global cooling myth:
    "But a new article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society challenges the idea of a ‘global cooling ’ consensus. Thomas Peterson of NOAA teamed with William Connolley of the British Antarctic survey and science reporter John Fleck to create a survey of peer-reviewed climate literature from the 1970s. Looking at every paper that dealt with climate change projections or an aspect of climate forcing from 1965 to 1979, they were able to assess the ‘trends’ in the literature. They found that only 7 of the 71 total papers surveyed predicted global cooling. The vast majority (44) actually predicted that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming."
  • #29
    It seems funny that is dead scientist prediction just happened to pop up. There is no real way to prove he did this or did not predict this. So you will excuse me if I don't believe this. Besides Nortadomas didn't predict this so I rest my case.
  • #66
    Maybe because I am a chemist, but I have known about his paper since the mid 1980's. There is so much information out there, it is not surprising most of us had not heard of him. Did you know of his work on acid-base theory, that the fundamental equation for the rate at which chemical reactions take place is the Arrhenius equation, that he proposed that a salt would dissolve in water, producing ions that would conduct electricity? If you are not a chemist, or have not taken chemistry in the last ten years, I would be surprised if you did. Why should you? I am sure that you know lots of stuff that I do not. That is how the world works, and that's a good thing. I would be upset if my dentist knew as little about teeth as I do.

    You can find his paper here:

    The following web pages, starting with the last few paragraphs of the first page, are a good summary of the paper and discussions that followed:
  • #91
    @RobertsH I have not herd of this gentleman. I just find it strange that when they lost the global warming due to people false reading that came up. The went to climate change. They bring up this report from a gentleman who has died. My grandfather always told me that the weather ran in 20 year cycles. He died at 85 25 years ago. I have watched and saw that he was basically correct. It some times it was later and other times sooner. We either have a hot dry summer for awhile and them it is a cool wet summer. Winters are either huge amounts of snow and ice or very little. So I really dont believe all these people screaming about global warming climate control. If you look behind most of these people they are making money off the panic. Thank you for the information I will research on it more
  • #101
    @RobertsH - You're new. Welcome to Politix.

    You're going to find (if you stick around) that there are many regulars here who refuse to believe that humans have anything to do with climate change, regardless of how many scientific reports and studies you link them to. I've been tilting at this particular windmill for about a year and a half. I'm happy to welcome an actual scientist into the fray. I don't have your credentials, I didn't even go to college, therefore they've labeled me a "stupid liberal progressive" to whom they refuse to listen. Perhaps some will learn from you. I am ever the optimist.:)
  • #108
    @Denizen_Kate I personally have not labeled anybody any thing. That is why I enjoy this site. People who have an opion even old fart consertives like myself can express their thoughts about news bits without labeling other folks. We may never agree with each other but at least we can have discussions and give the other person a chance to see your side.
  • #110
    @scotta - My comment wasn't about you personally labeling me or anyone, just mostly about so many I've sparred with here who, even when I lead them to discussions by actual scientists, continue to believe I'm full of Al Gore's nonsense instead of actually doing some homework on the topic.
  • R Load more replies

  • #6
    I don't think that anyone has asserted that the climate is NOT changing. I live in the South and I've noticed over the years that the climate in the Winter has gotten warmer. Well, this year we we are having one hell of a cold winter. The question is not that it is changing but what is causing it and what, if anything, we can do about it. I think that not enough attention is being paid to natural forces in this phenomenon.
  • #9
    I read an article today that actually showed that the destabilization of the atmosphere is changing the wind currents that are the main source of weather for the States by allowing Arctic air to enter the wind current and carry on down. It also demonstrated that despite the frigid cold that we are experiencing, this has been the 3rd hottest January as far as the temperature of the earth is concerned that we have on record since we started collecting data in 1880.
  • #16
    Correct. The funny thing is, what we consider a long life- is merely a blip on the lifespan of this planet. I'm sure there were blizzards we never knew about- and there wasn't 24/7 media to complain about it non stop :)
  • #20

    I remember the blizzards when I was a kid in Montana where the Air Force dropped hay so the cattle wouldn't starve.
  • #21

    Well, my arguments center on the erosion of the ozone especially over the Arctic coupled with the CO2 emissions that are producing the greenhouse gas effect. With the erosion comes the changes in arctic wind and with the accelerated heating of the earth comes variations in weather patterns that are a result of the conflicting forces. Yesterday my town was put on a severe thunderstorm warning and a tornado watch. I'm in Ohio. That's very bizarre. We have warmer weather right now, but next week we are projected to get hit with the polar vortex again.
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    Until and unless emerging nations like China and India get on board with curbing pollution, what more the U.S. does won't have much effect.
  • #19
    Oh, the US will have an effect. See, we have these morons who think by shipping our industry to Asian countries and South American countries where Green People and EPA can't get to them they are helping.
  • #37

    Very good point. By making it expensive to manufacture here, we've not only exported jobs but the ability to regulate those jobs. Kind of like shooting one's foot off to kill the spider on it.
  • #52
    @Cincinnatus, when you also factor in the demand for clean drinking water (think California), and energy you can see how easily we are really screwed. His analogy using bacteria with food is good, but we can cut down on the amount of food we consume. What we can't change is how much water we need--roughly two quarts per day.
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...