Global warming? Cooling?
1895 - NY Times ran stories about "Global Cooling"
1907 - NY Times warning of "Temperatures Rising Globally"
1924 - NY Times ran stories about "A New Ice Age"
1933 - NY Times reported "The Longest Warming Spell Since 1776"
1975 - NY Times "A major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"
Today - Back to warming
1923 - Time Magazine wrote about "Advancing Glaciers...new ice age"
1939 - Time..."No Doubt That the World is Warming"
1974 - Time..."Another Ice Age"
2001 - Time..."Scientists No Longer Doubt That Global Warming is Happening"
So I guess my question is: How long is it before the scientists, or at least the media, is convinced that we are headed for an ice age? I need to know if I should put away my thermals that I bought in the 70s or keep them out...I could need them soon.
Answer:
It might be happening.
The trouble is, as you've observed, the scientists don't even agree. If they did, they might still be wrong.
Hundreds of folk who listen to one another, watch the media panic salesmen, and form their opinions based on what they read in newspapers, see on television, or just gut feel, love the warm fuzzies and pronounce global warming as true.
It might be.
But whether it is, or isn't true, it will do what it's going to do without regard for inane, unfounded, faddish opinions of mankind.
More likely the next environmental crisis will come out of the corner of our eye and catch us completely by surprise, the way pesticides and their consequences did in the late '60s
As long as our environment is changing the media will spin it to the extreme to sell newspapers/magazines. Also scientists who publish their findings are more likely to gain fame/notoriety if they point out extreme findings.
that's science for ya! However i think that its important to think of the environment. Whether Global warming is occurring or not if it makes one person think about helping our natural resources then its worth it
Forget the media and look at the scientists.
The media does not present a balanced picture of science. Right now they give a lot of space to a very few skeptics of global warming, which is very misleading.
The early stuff, before the 1970s, just reflects the lack of data and the lack of development of the science. People were mostly guessing.
The 1974-1975 stuff was also guessing, just a few scientists who caught the medias attention. Much like the few noisy skeptics of today, they had no data, and no backing from any major scientific organization. More details here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=9...
The present situation is way different. Advanced science, loads of peer reviewed data, and widespread agreement in the scientific community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scientific_...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...
Bottom line:
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."
Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA
Good websites for more info:
http://profend.com/global-warming/...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...
One should not confuse what the media presents with what scientists are thinking.
The 1895 NYT article presented evidence of controversy, not of consensus. The evidence was not global, but confined to Scandinavia.
The 1907 NYT article? Haven't found evidence of it, and the date was not cited. In fact, NOTHING here is cited properly. Did you go to college?
The 1924 NYT article was about the Arctic only, not the globe as a whole.
The 1933 NYT article was about America only, not the globe as a whole.
The 1975-76 popular press scare was never a scientific consensus, nor even close to that.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage...
The 1923 Time article clearly labeled the ice-age idea as "conjecture". There was no scientific consensus.
The 1939 Time article was correct: the world had warmed considerably over the previous 50 years.
The 2001 Time article was also correct, and remains correct: scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening.
It's no news to me: another GW skeptic finds himself unable to cite even a single peer-reviewed paper to support his position, while the other side cites dozens. How often have we seen this?
not long
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: