Sunday, July 8, 2007

Global Cooling?...no way.

Global Cooling was a scientific theory in the 1970's that claimed that we would soon dive into another ice age due to extreme temperature patterns favoring cooler days, and that it would be preceded by and made manifest by a dire food shortage that covered the entire Earth.
"Predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism."
~ William Connolley, a climate scientist at the British Antarctic Survey who has made a hobby of studying ice age predictions.

The scientific methods that we now have are much more accurate and dependable than they were 35 years ago. Global Warming is a real phenomenon and needs our immediate attention and action.

7 comments:

katzbox said...

Thank you for your comments regarding our vastly updated scientific methods of calculating not only atmospheric conditions, but tracking and pronosticating such. As I've said before, pointing the finger of blame isn't as important as PINpointing what we can do to try to reverse the damage and that's why blogs like this are so helpful. That said, AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC, the magazine, had a special issue, September 2006, dedicated to the environment, "Energy's Future Beyond Carbon; How to power the economy and still fight global warming". You may be able to access the archives at www.sciam.com.

Anonymous said...

No wonder people are confused about this issue. It's a good thing that the Live Earth concert and other attention-getting events, celebrity endorsement of this cause and the media spotlight are all working together to bring this important challenge to the forefront of the world's consciousness. Science differs on many issues, we all know that studies, surveys and polls can be skewed to "prove" nearly any premise. People should be careful not to accept just any statement as fact. People tend to give credence to the studies which support their own ideas. We all need to be responsible to thoroughly study the issues so that we can make informed decisions.

eagerblogger said...

I agree. I'm really scared for my kids. I don't know what kind of world they'll have when they're older. :(

igmuska said...

In my opinion, clean coal technologies and nuclear energy are not realistic alternatives to reducing greenhouse gases; rather conservation, wind and solar power, improving our public transportation, and educating ourselves that we are not only individuals, we are also citizens of this precious world.

Roger, Gone Green said...

Human Created Climate Change is a better title, or just "Climate Change." So called global warming means some places get hotter, some drier, some wetter, and some colder. A long range result of (relatively)short term accelerated warming is a long-term ice age like era. It is true that our science is better, but the global cooling issue was not so terribly off if the issue of climate change rather than global warming is considered . . .

rgpman said...

I read this article in Newsweek a couple of days ago about major corporations and their plans to derail the efforts to fight global warming. I got pretty bent out of shape.

My anger turned into a desire to do something. This morning I was checking out Google's new "Google base" and came across this article:

http://base.google.com/base/a/2560087/D6726493050951623104

The thing I found interesting was not so much the article itself, but the website it was referring to. I wanted to share my thoughts and experiences, with regards to that site, in a way that might move others to action. (BTW: The article in Google base is actually amusing and is worth a read)

I spent my lunch break going through the entire website and, let me just say, these guys seem to have something here. They have a pretty extensive FAQ page that I found very informative.

At first, I thought that it was a joke or maybe even a scam, however, I was persuaded otherwise. In their F.A.Q. page they addressed the fact that there are scam artist that prey on the naive. They actually gave links to the authorities, the FBI and their state's Attorney General's office, to use if participants feel they have been defrauded!

I want it to be understood that I am a skeptic and pretty tight with my financial resources. I am also EXTREMELY environmentally conscious. That being said, I really felt that this might amount to something. Other green skeptics should browse though the F.A.Q. page as well as the rest of the site and see if they come to the same conclusions.

I showed the site to several of my co-workers and they all searched through the site, as well. At last count, myself and about 30 of my co-workers have taken part in their program.

What this organization, the Adopt the Atmosphere Foundation or ATAF, offers is sponsorship or what they call "Adoption" of the Earth's atmosphere. They have divided the atmosphere up into "columns" that are each 400 Kilometers high with a 100 square Kilometer base. People can adopt or sponsor an atmosphere column and become a member of their organization for a nominal, and 100% refundable fee.

There are several graphs on their site that clearly explain what the fee is spent on. About 85% will go towards environmental charities, environmental lobbying, and environmental issue awareness campaigns . The rest is divided up in administrative office expenses.

The thing I thought was so intriguing about ATAF was that they are hoping to eventually register the adoption/sponsorship of the entire atmosphere! I guess they plan to use the registry of adopters as a platform to be heard in the international community.

That's kind of interesting! If the entire atmosphere is divided up and sponsored by environmentally concerned individuals and the concise, detailed records of these designated sponsored columns are kept by an organization in a database registry, the members of that organization would have some real clout.

Even if the only outcome of a massive registry of adopters is a raised level of environmental awareness, than I say, "Good on ya!" to those who've orchestrated such a thing.

FYI: The ATAF website is www.adoptatmosphere.com

alvinwriter said...

Hi, as a representative of the Voxant Newsroom, I believe that global warming and economies are, and will be, at odds for a long time. This is due to the world's dependence on fossil fuels which contribute to the release of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The suggestions for the future made in the other comments here are very good. As manufacturers move to make products and processes less dependent on oil, we are slowly moving into a future where oil would be the "dirty" alternative to more "conventional" sources of energy like wind, wave, solar, and even seawater, which is said to give off combustible hydrogen when exposed to radio waves.

I think the future looks good whether or not this warming trend will be long-term or not. Fossil fuels might not last another hundred years anyway. But with the effects of warming all over the news, we should do what we can now, and that's to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions.

China ready to fight global warming, but not at any cost: http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/366643?c_id=wom-bc-ar

You may find more related news on global warming in the Voxant Newsroom. You may email jtowns@voxant.com for details on how we can be your partner in great news content.

- Alvin from TheScienceDesk at the Voxant Newsroom