Newsweek April 28, 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.




Thirty years ago, environmental scientists were predicting a long period of severe global cooling. It never happened. Today, environmental scientists are predicting a long period of global warming. Its true, when we don't remember our history we are doomed to repeat it.

I don't believe in this, everyone always predicts things that never happen.

quote:

There is no harm in being prepared. What is that famous phrase? "Better safe than sorry." Come on, at least acknowledging that there is the possibility of some sort of problem won't kill you. Perhaps there won't be some major climate crisis. Perhaps the Earth will continue on its merry way with everything the same as usual. But then again, perhaps not. I'm not going for the part of doomsayer here, but you can't ignore the facts. No matter how hard you try to make them go away, they're still there.

The question is about what the facts actually are and how to interperet them. As an environmental science student, and an active conservationist, I'm concerned about the HUGE amount of misinformation out there. I'm not convinced that Global Warming as it's presented to milllions of people is actually working the way we're told, or if these climate models we're predicting are accurate. In fact I'm willing to bet 99% of long term climate models will be off by huge and unacceptable factors. Why? Because we haven't come up with an accurate climate model yet, and we're still working on predicting what the weather will be two weeks from now.

There are MANY conflicting reports out there. Go out and look for yourself. The problem is every time someone sees a paper that contradicts the "general knowladge" of global warming they assume it's tainted by corporations or corrupt politicians. At the same time, they totally accept the conclusions of the other side, even though many of thier organizations recieve large amounts of funding from lawsuits and donors, making thier continued existance dependent on "proving" global warming is a massive, human-created threat.. There are many groups out there who have a vested (and financial) interest in making global warming seem catostrophic threat. This leads to a WHOLE lot of bad science.

So it comes down to a difference between "Better safe than sorry" and "The sky is falling!"

There is no harm in being prepared. What is that famous phrase? "Better safe than sorry." Come on, at least acknowledging that there is the possibility of some sort of problem won't kill you. Perhaps there won't be some major climate crisis. Perhaps the Earth will continue on its merry way with everything the same as usual. But then again, perhaps not. I'm not going for the part of doomsayer here, but you can't ignore the facts. No matter how hard you try to make them go away, they're still there.

quote:

Originally posted by reactionary05:
Your post was exactly correct, 4thname, Co2 output has risen greatly...

A little more than correct. Do you deny science and reason now also?

The earth can't just "compensate" as you call it.

For example: in 20 years there will be no coral reefs on earth.

The world is being destroyed in the name of so called "economic progress." But what progress will we have when the world can no longer sustain itself. Neoclassical economics is raping out planet. The current economic model is like playing chess on a sinking ship. No matter who wins... the boat's still gonna sink.

We need to start getting a grip and take actions to save our future and the future of our children.

Today, more than 31,000 plants and animal species are threatened with extinction. Everyday on Planet Earth, as the sun sets, up to 137 creatures shut their eyes, never to have their kind see the light of day again.

The rate of extinction is between 50 and 200 times the natural rate. That rate is expected to accelerate to up to 1,000 to 10,000 times the natural pace of extinction.

In the next 25 years we can expect to see the disappearance of up to 10% of the world's species.

Yea reactionary. The world seems to be"compensating" well doesn't it now.

But hell. Lets keep listening to him.

It has always compensated with an ice age. So this is a classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

We are currently in the middle of a prolonged interglacial period, as shown by the abnormally high temperatures. This is normal. However, these interglacial periods usually don't last as long as the current one has. We're long overdue for an ice age.

Your post was exactly correct, 4thname, Co2 output has risen greatly, but our earth is able to compensate for it, just as it has during our previous periods of global warming, and global cooling.

but then again ...



meh

I've said my bit already. September 2004 National Geographic. Look it up. It explains it all.

quote:

Originally posted by northstar316:

It would seem not. you can tell that to fried coral beds and El Niño.

The issue is NOT whether local and global climates are warming a bit causing localized coral bleachings. The fact remains that during the mid 20th century temperatures actually cooled globally DESPITE constantly and signifigantly rising CO2 levels. We're seeing an increase in global temperatures overall, however there is no way you can say with any scientific credibility that it is primarily caused by human CO2 emissions.

If you'd actually take time to read a large number of reports, you'd know that there are tons of conflicting studies, and papers out there. Climate models have huge amounts of guess work and have consitantly fand grossly ailed in the past.

That is why we cannot risk crushing the economies of nearly every developed nation on this planet, while letting China, India, and a host of other nations continue to pollute. This is exactly what Kyoto will do, and exactly why it would fail. It's a treaty with no teeth and a lose-lose situation for the US and Europe.

quote:

Originally posted by reactionary05:

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Glad to see you're still mindlessly grinding away at trying to disprove the inevitable. At least it keeps you occupied. But why don't you go pick up a copy of the September 2004 issue of National Geographic and find out for yourself how bad global warming is. I dare you.

We're "tettering" on the edge of a frozen earth in 1975 & now we're tettering on the edge of a melting earth in 2005. The environment just can't keep up with you demogogues, apparently.

It would seem not. you can tell that to fried coral beds and El Niño.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Glad to see you're still mindlessly grinding away at trying to disprove the inevitable. At least it keeps you occupied. But why don't you go pick up a copy of the September 2004 issue of National Geographic and find out for yourself how bad global warming is. I dare you.

We're "tettering" on the edge of a frozen earth in 1975 & now we're tettering on the edge of a melting earth in 2005. The environment just can't keep up with you demogogues, apparently.

Glad to see you're still mindlessly grinding away at trying to disprove the inevitable. At least it keeps you occupied. But why don't you go pick up a copy of the September 2004 issue of National Geographic and find out for yourself how bad global warming is. I dare you.

would you rather let us sit blindly and just let the cooperations pump the atmosphere with mercury, then?

Wow. Thanks for all the info, I learned some things today.

Yes, it's very unfortunate that most political leaders are turning a blind eye to the environment. It's all about "The economy's everything" and "Will I get re-elected?" In truth, what's happening to our world right now has more to do with the economy than anything else. Leaders like, (cough) Bush, should get their act together and DO something, instead of only focusing on one thing (e.g. Iraq).