1976 vs 2017

[Doggit]

Oh yeah, great strategy (sorry for the sarcasm), but they're cutting down a mature tree, and plantng 3 saplings, so maybe about 12 years to get back to where it was. Just think of how much gets taken out of the eco system every time they cut down another acre of trees. God I hate talking like a Green.

You replace the forests with farms, and you can increase the temperature of the land because the crops absorb more heat than the trees would (and it's seasonalbe, so not stable) and that creates air currents that rise. So, is the supposed greenhouse effect being cause by emmisions (and they conveniantly forget those caused by forest fires and volcanoes), or more heat generated by the land. Which might explaon why Antarica is doing okay, but the Artic isn't

 

[wobs]

Depends what you read - or look for.

https://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/in-the-1970s-the-panic-was-over-global-cooling-2/

You've just linked to a blog that promotes climate change denial. This includes a mention of climatologists such as Professor Stephen Schneider who at one point thought that global cooling might happen, but has been an advocate for global warming for decades.

The links in your blog you put up are media reports. It was a media sensation at the time, but this was not reflected in the scientific community at the time, where most scientists in that field believed the planet would warm rather than cool.

Since the 1970s, the amount of research into this subject has mushroomed, with satellite measurements, increasingly advanced modelling,.... oh the small matter of an economic explosion on a global level. So even though a minority thought that cooling was going to happen decades ago, this is evidence of erm... something. Even most denialists don't think the world is cooling (they think its a natural cycle). Meanwhile, about 97% of climatologists do think we are causing AGW, as the evidence from all this research tells us as much.

What was your point again?

 

[Brigadier]

"Meanwhile, about 97% of climatologists do think we are causing AGW, as the evidence from all this research tells us as much."

As the "A" stands for "Anthropogenic", I'd hope that 100% of climatologists thought that we are causing it!

 

[wobs]

We have a global warming lobby that is relentless in the extremes it will go to to get it's message across. But when they were found to be fiddling the figures, it got changed to climate change (which I agree with), and then it turned back to climate change making the earth warmer. Yet in 2014/15, the ice in Antartica reached exeptional levels before dropping back to normal levels, so the north of the planet is getting warmer, and the south is back to normal.

They were accused and cleared of fiddling the figures.
Polar ice is in retreat overall.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SeaIce.HTM
Or here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

So, is it that the greater land mass in the north is contributing to the higher temperatures, (which could still imply it's man made), and the greater sea mass in Antartica is holding it's own. But is climate change due to emissions, or over farming, and to my mind, the incessant cutting down of the forests.

How much is due to agriculture is open to debate, but emissions is something we can easily do something about by stop burning fossil fuels (mainly coal), and going nuclear/renewables where possible. Fossil fuels get the media attention though yes.

A change in agricultural practises is inevitable as the population can afford more food, and we have to increase production.

We know the jet stream shifts and pulls warm air from the equator towards the north, and they still haven't got to grips with why it does it. Is this part of a natural cylcle, I suspect part of it is, but I don't think we will cure the problem by cutting down on emissions, even though I think we should, nor will we solve anything with renewables that have numerouse short comings; but as trees provide us with oxygen, I just cannot understand the limited thinking of those who would cut them down, and whilst not being a Green, I do think we need to start protecting, and replanting as many forests as we can.

Are you aware that many western nations are planting more trees than they are chopping down?
As for chopping down trees for fuel - we should be going for coppicing, as you don't get the issue with rotting root systems, and so more carbon is kept in the ground.

You also wrote:

Oh yeah, great strategy (sorry for the sarcasm), but they're cutting down a mature tree, and plantng 3 saplings, so maybe about 12 years to get back to where it was. Just think of how much gets taken out of the eco system every time they cut down another acre of trees. God I hate talking like a Green.

See previous comment.
In addition though, the IPCC do recommend certain areas are better for planting trees to combat climate change than others. In addition, there those that claim that meadows actually store more carbon per hectare than forest, so grazing animals will also have it's benefits.

You replace the forests with farms, and you can increase the temperature of the land because the crops absorb more heat than the trees would (and it's seasonable, so not stable) and that creates air currents that rise.

These maybe some factors, but don't you think the IPCC has considered these? The IPCC are not the alarmist group many people think they are.

So, is the supposed greenhouse effect being cause by emissions

Largely - yes. Not only is CO2 concentrations increasing, we know they are coming from fossil fuels, owing to their "fingerprint" of the type of carbon that fossil fuels emit.

(and they conveniently forget those caused by forest fires and volcanoes)

These are a small factor compared to manmade factors. We emit about 100 times the carbon than volcanoes.

, or more heat generated by the land. Which might explain why Antarctica is doing okay, but the Artic isn't

See earlier link.
But also, that would not explain the heating of the oceans

Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/1976-vs-2017.484282/page-2#ixzz4kid8IztO

 

[wobs]

You replace the forests with farms, and you can increase the temperature of the land because the crops absorb more heat than the trees would

Just found the map where the IPCC thinks it best to plant trees to help tackle the issue:

 

[empip]

These papers exist (at least the few I clicked through to).

The 'complete'(?) list of 285 Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence papers from the 1960s to 1980s can be found using the below links:
Author summarises the cooling content after each link.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

-0-

 

[^woody^]

The only good thing about the 1970s was being a kid. Outside of that you had deep snow, hot summer (1976), rubbish TV on an evening. Some appalling music/fashions, poor safety/environmental standards, and politics that we would like to forget (ok, so the same could apply now with Brexit).

That's mostly in retrospect.

At the time, I was pretty cool in my sidepocket flares with 7 button high wasteband and baseball pumps or monkey boots.
TV was OK, but we were out most of the time and not slaves to it, and only stayed in to sleep or eat.
No H&S or claims culture, we did did what we wanted how we wanted, and the only worry was getting a clip around the ear if we ripped our clothes or scuffed our shoes -or ourselves.
And who cared about politics when you were in junior school?

Brilliant summer though. Out from early morning untill it got dark, not a cloud not a care.

 

[wobs]

These papers exist (at least the few I clicked through to).

The 'complete'(?) list of 285 Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence papers from the 1960s to 1980s can be found using the below links:
Author summarises the cooling content after each link.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

-0-

All from one blog, with some disturbing cherry picking.

Here is a report on the myth of a cooling consensus:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an


imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated

the peer-reviewed literature even then."

"The Myth. When climate researcher Reid
Bryson stood before the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in December 1972, his description of the state of scientists’ understanding of climate change sounded very much like the old story about the group of blind men trying to describe an elephant. The integrated enterprise of climate science as we know it today was in its infancy, with different groups of scientists feeling blindly around their piece of the lumbering climate beast. Rigorous measurements of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide were available for the first time, along with modelling results suggesting that global warming would be a clear consequence. Meanwhile, newly created global temperature series showed cooling since the 1940s, and other scientists were looking to aerosols to explain the change. The mystery of waxing and waning ice ages had long entranced geologists, and a cohesive explanation in term of orbital solar forcing was beginning to emerge. Underlying this discussion was a realization that climate could change on time scales with the potential for significant effects on human societies, and that human activities could trigger such changes (Bryson 1974)."

Further reading here with actual reports available:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

A history of climate research here:
http://history.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm
- Quite an interesting read actually.

And in the 1975 Understanding Climatic Change, A Program for Action from , it states:
"Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines it's course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes."

And recommends:
"1) Adopt a national program to study the climate
2) Analyze climate data from conventional instruments, satellites, etc.
3) Develop a program to monitor and index all climate data.
4) Accelerate research on climate.
5) Adopt an international program to study climate. (same as #1 but just international)
6) Try to reconstruct the history of the earths pre-industrial climate via tree rings, fossils, etc."

So it recognised what the scientific community didn't know at the time, and didn't predict global cooling, and recommended ways to improve our knowledge so we can make predictions.

From here:
http://logicalscience.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/wooden-stake-in-newsweeks-global.html

And here from 1979:
https://www.nap.edu/read/12181/chapter/1#viii
Which, if you go to the summary, clearly predicts an increase in CO2 will cause global warming. Obviously it was cautious how much, as we didn't have the means and knowledge back then.

 

[Ihavenojob]

But it was a great summer, yes?