Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Earth Day 1970 Predictions


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#31    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,163 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 23 April 2013 - 08:48 PM

View PostMichelle, on 23 April 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

To people that don't have a science degree, which most of us do not, one looks as credible as the other. That is, I believe, who you are trying to convice. To us, it is a theory that has yet to be proven or seen.
Only if you willfully ignore and deform the evidence. It doesn't take a degree to read scientific papers (but it certainly helps) but most people simply prefer to receive their knowledge predigested for them - which leaves them wide open to fraud.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#32    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,737 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:13 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 23 April 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

I recall reading about an "impending ice age" back in the 60s.  As I recall, it reported that there had been a recent downturn in temps and asked "Is this the beginning of a new ice age?"  It said that full development of an ice sheet would take around 3000 years, so I decided not to lose any sleep over it.  But even then, I realized that temperatures go up and temperatures go down and that this wasn't anything to worry about.

And I don't recall anybody getting upset about it, or making any predictions that such a thing would actually happen.
Doug

I take it with a grain of salt like I did then. We can only do what we can do...the rest is up to Mother Nature.


#33    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,234 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:14 PM

View PostMichelle, on 23 April 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

I do get terribly offended when people say if you don't fall for this new trend hook, line and sinker that you care nothing for the environment. First, you know nothing about how those people live and second, if you think insults are the way to influence people you are sadly mistaken.
On the subject of insults:  for some reason, these threads seem to attract a lot of that.

Might I remind everybody that ridiculing a person's opinion, then pretending to be offended when they refer to you as "a right-wing lunatic" or some other pejorative term, is extremely hypocritical.  If you don't want to attract such insults, don't go fishing for them.

I will do my best to avoid such offenses in the future, but this is a difficult place to do so.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#34    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,737 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:15 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 23 April 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

Only if you willfully ignore and deform the evidence. It doesn't take a degree to read scientific papers (but it certainly helps) but most people simply prefer to receive their knowledge predigested for them - which leaves them wide open to fraud.

Br Cornelius

Thank you...


#35    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,163 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:47 PM

Quote

A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

http://www.newscient...-the-1970s.html

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#36    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,906 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 24 April 2013 - 12:55 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 23 April 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Merc you've shown yourself to be grossly ignorant of even the basics of climate science so I hardly think you are qualified to comment in any meaningful way about climate science.

Here is a summary of what the scientists really believed about the climate back in the 1970's;

http://www.skeptical...al-cooling.html

And a scientific paper (prepublication published) performing a complete literary review of the myth of global cooling concensus;




http://ams.confex.co...pers/131047.pdf

Br Cornelius

Thanks for your opinion.  As usual it will be ignored but I thought I'd respond since you spent sooo much time replying to this thread and bringing up everything and anything accept how silly the gurus of your culture were back in 1970.  Guess I hit a nerve here but don't let being wrong stop you, it never has before. :tu:

Edited by Merc14, 24 April 2013 - 12:56 AM.

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#37    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,163 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 24 April 2013 - 07:00 AM

View PostMerc14, on 24 April 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

Thanks for your opinion.  As usual it will be ignored but I thought I'd respond since you spent sooo much time replying to this thread and bringing up everything and anything accept how silly the gurus of your culture were back in 1970.  Guess I hit a nerve here but don't let being wrong stop you, it never has before. :tu:
I supplied you with some information, not just opinion - are you going to ignore that to ?

Let the science lead you - not the guru's :tu:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 24 April 2013 - 07:07 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#38    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,234 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 24 April 2013 - 02:01 PM

View PostMerc14, on 24 April 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

Thanks for your opinion.  As usual it will be ignored but I thought I'd respond since you spent sooo much time replying to this thread and bringing up everything and anything accept how silly the gurus of your culture were back in 1970.  Guess I hit a nerve here but don't let being wrong stop you, it never has before. :tu:
Post # 33:

View PostDoug1o29, on 23 April 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

Might I remind everybody that ridiculing a person's opinion, then pretending to be offended when they refer to you as "a right-wing lunatic" or some other pejorative term, is extremely hypocritical.  If you don't want to attract such insults, don't go fishing for them.
Merc:  Go easy on the flamebaiting.  If you don't want to collect backlash and insults, quit handing them out.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#39    jbondo

jbondo

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:behind you

Posted 24 April 2013 - 02:22 PM

Although these men are typically wrong, based on their predictions, it would seem they will only need to be right once for total devastation.


#40    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,163 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 24 April 2013 - 02:40 PM

View Postjbondo, on 24 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Although these men are typically wrong, based on their predictions, it would seem they will only need to be right once for total devastation.
the science was very primitive back then and the proportion of people who predicted the correct course of events within the scientific community were five times more common than those who got it wrong.

However those who got it wrong were at least partially correct;

-they knew that the milankovich cycles were predicting a return to ice age, but the calculations were not accurate enough at that stage to say when. Milankovich cycles are an aspect of astronomy and those working in that field at that time were not expected to know about the influence of greenhouse gases on the overall climate cycle - they made their predictions in relative isolation.

-there was, and still is, a cooling influence of particulates. This had a very significant effect through the first half of the 20th century as dirty industry dominated. The balance of warming from greenhouse gases vs cooling from particulates was as yet unquantified and allowed for people to take a position either way. The issue was only resolved as more data was collected and applied to quantifying the net effect.

It is only from the 1990's onwards where all of these different fields of research were brough together to resolve the issue of what the climate was likely to do in the future.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#41    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,234 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 24 April 2013 - 03:16 PM

View Postjbondo, on 24 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Although these men are typically wrong, based on their predictions, it would seem they will only need to be right once for total devastation.
Back in the 70s we knew a lot less about climate than we know now.  Predictions made in the 70s and 80s are pretty much irrelevant now.

What is of concern is that we might be approaching a threshold, perhaps one we don't even know about.  The difference in global mean temperatures between the 1950s and now is only about 0.3 degrees C.  But that is enough to keep Lake Erie from freezing over.  And that means the lake's surface is absorbing a lot more sunlight (heat) than it was in the 1940s.  The same is happening to the Arctic Ocean on a larger scale.  That same 0.3 degrees was enough to get us over the threshold.  We have now entrained the melt-off of Arctic sea ice, something we cannot stop.

Many people think of climate change as a slow, incremental thing, and so far, that's what it has been - this time.  But as a threshold is crossed, change can be rapid and devastating.  At the end of the Younger Dryas (10,660 yBP) the climate went from full glacial conditions to warm, balmy Holocene in four years.  In Greenland, snowfall levels made the change in just two years; the entire process took about 40 years.  When it comes, it is likely to be sudden.

Past climate shifts have been accompanied by a "flickering" of weather patterns as the threshold was crossed.  Several years of drought, followed by several years of heavy rains, followed by several years of drought again, the cycle repeating until the climate system settled into its new "normal."  That "flickering" appears to be what we're seeing with the "wild weather" that has been happening since 2008.  And that appears to be the result of reduced ice levels in the Arctic.

Many of the earth's natural systems exist in a precarious balance.  Most trees world-wide live under a permanent moisture stress condition.  A little bit dryer and whole forests die.  Example:  the loss of 200,000 acres of pinyons in the Four Corners area is only a small part of a four-state dieoff and the mountain pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia is killing billions of dollars of ponderosa pine.

The Great Lakes have a precarious water balance.  The water that flows over Niagara Falls is the difference between what fell in the Upper Lakes as rain and what evaporated.  Lake St. Clair actually went dry during the Altithermal and Lake Erie was reduced to two large puddles (Lakes Ypsilanti).  Beneath the Mackinaw Bridge is an underwater canyon eroded during the Altithermal when Lakes Michigan and Huron were a couple hundred feet lower.  It wouldn't take a big change in average rainfall to tip them past the point of no return.  2007 set new record low-water levels for the lakes and the situation is still serious.

Another big concern is that a slight increase in ocean temperatures, or a shift in ocean circulation could result in warming of methane deposits in the ocean deeps.  Additional methane release means more carbon in the atmosphere, means more warming, means warmer sea water, means more methane release, etc.  At that point, warming becomes self-sustaining.

Will this happen?  The most we can say is that it could.  But with all the uncertainties, we just don't know.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 24 April 2013 - 03:31 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#42    jbondo

jbondo

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:behind you

Posted 24 April 2013 - 03:40 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 24 April 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Back in the 70s we knew a lot less about climate than we know now.  Predictions made in the 70s and 80s are pretty much irrelevant now.

What is of concern is that we might be approaching a threshold, perhaps one we don't even know about.  The difference in global mean temperatures between the 1950s and now is only about 0.3 degrees C.  But that is enough to keep Lake Erie from freezing over.  And that means the lake's surface is absorbing a lot more sunlight (heat) than it was in the 1940s.  The same is happening to the Arctic Ocean on a larger scale.  That same 0.3 degrees was enough to get us over the threshold.  We have now entrained the melt-off of Arctic sea ice, something we cannot stop.

Past climate shifts have been accompanied by a "flickering" of weather patterns as the threshold was crossed.  Several years of drought, followed by several years of heavy rains, followed by several years of drought again, the cycle repeating until the climate system settled into its new "normal."  That "flickering" appears to be what we're seeing with the "wild weather" that has been happening since 2008.  And that appears to be the result of reduced ice levels in the Arctic.

Many of the earth's natural systems exist in a precarious balance.  Most trees world-wide live under a permanent moisture stress condition.  A little bit dryer and whole forests die.  Example:  the loss of 200,000 acres of pinyons in the Four Corners area is only a small part of a four-state dieoff and the mountain pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia is killing billions of dollars of ponderosa pine.

The Great Lakes have a precarious water balance.  The water that flows over Niagara Falls is the difference between what fell in the Upper Lakes as rain and what evaporated.  Lake St. Clair actually went dry during the Altithermal and Lake Erie was reduced to two large puddles (Lakes Ypsilanti).  Beneath the Mackinaw Bridge is an underwater canyon eroded during the Altithermal when Lakes Michigan and Huron were a couple hundred feet lower.  It wouldn't take a big change in average rainfall to tip them past the point of no return.  2007 set new record low-water levels for the lakes and the situation is still serious.

Another big concern is that a slight increase in ocean temperatures, or a shift in ocean circulation could result in warming of methane deposits in the ocean deeps.  Additional methane release means more carbon in the atmosphere, means more warming, means warmer sea water, means more methane release, etc.  At that point, warming becomes self-sustaining.

Will this happen?  The most we can say is that it could.  But with all the uncertainties, we just don't know.
Doug


Doug, you are absolutely correct and I have spent many hours studying climate change from an independent perspective. My findings indicate the same result every time. Frankly, I'm getting tired of laying it all out for everyone. What I will say is this:

1. The planet is warming
2. It is warming at breakneck speed and getting faster
3. We are likely not going to be able to stop the negative ramifications
4. We are the reason for this accelerated effect

It may take another generation before it all hits the critical point (actually, I'd call it critical right now) and the scary part is that the Sht might hit the fan so fast and hard that most will be blind sided by it. Especially those who are still in denial.

By the way, I'm a pretty conservative person, but anyone with a sense of logic can easily see this is happening just by taking their blinders off and using their God given senses.


#43    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,906 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 25 April 2013 - 12:44 AM

Oh good lord, this thread is still going?  I knew I shouldn't have brought up the '70's.   Br Cornelius, the answer is yes.  :tu:

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#44    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,906 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:24 AM

View Postjbondo, on 24 April 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

Doug, you are absolutely correct and I have spent many hours studying climate change from an independent perspective. My findings indicate the same result every time. Frankly, I'm getting tired of laying it all out for everyone. What I will say is this:

1. The planet is warming
2. It is warming at breakneck speed and getting faster
3. We are likely not going to be able to stop the negative ramifications
4. We are the reason for this accelerated effect

It may take another generation before it all hits the critical point (actually, I'd call it critical right now) and the scary part is that the Sht might hit the fan so fast and hard that most will be blind sided by it. Especially those who are still in denial.

By the way, I'm a pretty conservative person, but anyone with a sense of logic can easily see this is happening just by taking their blinders off and using their God given senses.

What about this, from your independent perspective
http://www.thegwpf.o...-200-250-years/

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#45    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,163 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:57 AM

View PostMerc14, on 29 April 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

What about this, from your independent perspective
http://www.thegwpf.o...-200-250-years/

Yuri Nagovitsy who's quote this op-ed is based on is not a climate skeptic and accepts the reality of AGW caused by greenhouse gases. To place the global cooling meme into context this is what he says about it and the use of his science to bolster belief in it;

"Solar activity is one of the most complicated scientific issues. And suddenly someone, who has never studied climate before, starts making statements. I want to stress that this theory is neither the official theory of the Pulkovo observatory nor of the Commission on Climate Changes Studies at St. Petersburg Research Center."
-Yuri Nagovitsy

Thats a fairly explicit distancing himself from the myth that we are about to enter a new ice age brough on by solar activity and the use of his science to support such a myth.

He then goes on to estimate the total contribution of solar activity to climate change;

"The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%"
-- Yuri Nagovitsy

You should make more of an effort to avoid using biased sources who actively distort what the scientists are saying about their work.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users