The Cooling World

Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels.

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Quote :

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.

blah blah blah

People would buy anything anyway.

Global warming is a conspiracy by lots of people, that some work seperatley, some together. The biggest bad guy, of course, is Al Gore. He just wants attention and money... Like all the global warming idiots do.

Valcav Klaus is right, global warming ideology is like Marxism. Except him only the Pope Benedict XVI has the courage to speak against global warming mafia. Their goal is to steal taxpayers money, turn attention from other problems. They talk about this all the time, while about EU consitution at all. I have read recently that temperature on Mars and Pluto have risen too, somebody should tell the Marsians to burn less coal

Here is funny song about Al Gore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXrc1XZayp4&feature=related

I don't care about Gore and others, but when I was a kid winters were much colder here. And last year we didn't even have snow in December The climate is changing - no doubt.
And we have to take care of the environment, anyway.

So what if there is no Global warming?
Is it still right to fume toxical gases and other polluting materials to the atmosphere which aren't reused at all?
If you pour fluid into a glass continuosly once it will flow over the edges. Once we must stop it you accept it or not.
No matter how unsimpathical some politicians are, at present an average world-citizen consumes two and a half times more per year than what is sustainable of the resources of the Earth.

Climate is changing all the time, this article just confirm that this is normal. Obviously that I support all reasonable efforts to protect environment. Politicians should do something in this direction rather to spend billions (steal billions) to reduce emissions of CO2 which is neutral.

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

Climate is changing all the time, this article just confirm that this is normal. Obviously that I support all reasonable efforts to protect environment. Politicians should do something in this direction rather to spend billions (steal billions) to reduce emissions of CO2 which is neutral.

CO2 WOULD be neutral if the percentage of CO2 was under 0,033% of the atmosphere. This is the number where plants consume the most CO2 and produce the most O2. Originally this number was 0,03% but thanks to human process, it is 0,035% right now and it is continuosly going up. It means that the ability of photosintetizating plants of recycling CO2 is becoming worse and worse from year to year. Note that inhaling air, containing 5% CO2 causes sudden poisoning for human body.
I haven't said anything new, just the biology material everyone learns in Hungary in secondary school.

Kiskun, What can I say? Hungarians public schools have very weak level But this is worldwide problem

I don't know how they are able so precisely calculate all these statistics that you provided... I would like also to see the graph showing level of the CO2 in the atmosphere through the centuries. Without such graph we are unable to judge current level. Also this is impossible to proof human to be responsible for changes.

However I have one more argument to discuss.

All the coal or oil that we burn these days were before in plants. And plants could take it only from the air. Conclusion. In the air there was as much CO2 as if we would burn all coal and oil. This would not be some new situation that never appeared in the past on the earth. So how anybody could claim that some level of CO2 in atmosphere is natural? Some predict that for example oil resources are planned to explore for about 60 years. Even if this would influence the level of CO2 in atmosphere then because of lack of new oil to burn everything would slowly back to current level.

...Which would be the normal process... But in the history of Earth there has been times where the conditions have been extreme...

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

Kiskun, What can I say? Hungarians public schools have very weak level But this is worldwide problem

I don't know how they are able so precisely calculate all these statistics that you provided... I would like also to see the graph showing level of the CO2 in the atmosphere through the centuries. Without such graph we are unable to judge current level. Also this is impossible to proof human to be responsible for changes.

However I have one more argument to discuss.

All the coal or oil that we burn these days were before in plants. And plants could take it only from the air. Conclusion. In the air there was as much CO2 as if we would burn all coal and oil. This would not be some new situation that never appeared in the past on the earth. So how anybody could claim that some level of CO2 in atmosphere is natural? Some predict that for example oil resources are planned to explore for about 60 years. Even if this would influence the level of CO2 in atmosphere then because of lack of new oil to burn everything would slowly back to current level.

People know only about the extinction of the dinosaurs usually, but there were two other greater happenings like that when 70-80% of living creatures died and species extincted.
And when there were times when CO2 had a higher or lower amount in the atmosphere, climate, successful flora and fauna was also far-more different

By the way it is not the only source I know about the biology topic.
Have you ever thought about a closed biosphere for example to prove that number? Soviet Union and USA had several greater projects about that. And it is obviously not the only way, those who are into biology can surely tell us more methods.
But I am not about defending it anyway, since this is very-well known fact, maybe the public doesn't know it so particularly elsewhere in the world, though it is still true.
Just because you don't know the exact mathematical way to prove it, it doesn't mean that fifth-degree equation has a key, and it doesn't mean that others don't, or mathematics-scientists don't know well the fact that a fifth-digree equation really doesn't have a key at all.
It's like 1+1=2 just not so obvious and not so easily-understandable by the people. That's all.

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

Even if this would influence the level of CO2 in atmosphere then because of lack of new oil to burn everything would slowly back to current level.

Yeah, that is what the public thinks. And this is not so.
As well as other similar threats either.

Just an example: the fish-stocks around New-Foundland were about to disappear in 1990 thanks to human overfishing, so the local government brought a law that every kind of - even hobby - fishing became banned. Fish grow to a fertile-age in months or in worst case, a few years. What happened since that?
17 years passed and the number of fishes hasn't rose at all.

On the other hand just because this is the most fashionable topic, it doesn't mean that CO2 hasn't got any other - similarly great - affects on the environment and with this to human economy.

Of course we could write more of such tales. for now nobody could prove that global warming is caused by human. You could blame me for my ignorance but we have disagreement on scientific level as well. Professors cannot came to concussion and people without proper knowledge like Al Gore who care about cash only explore this situation.

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

Of course we could write more of such tales for now nobody could prove that global warming is caused by human. You could blame me for my ignorance but we have disagreement on scientific level as well. Professors cannot came to concussion and people without proper knowledge like Al Gore who care about cash only explore this situation.

I haven't spoken about global warming , only that CO2 is definitely not neutral as you wrote.

And I still doubt that people can estimate where is edge point.

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

And I still doubt that people can estimate where is edge point.

Exactly. That is why we shouldn't rise the risk factors.

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

Of course we could write more of such tales. for now nobody could prove that global warming is caused by human.

Maybe not but I don't think that's a reason to keep polluting the way people do now.

Very interesting English documentary:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6772058898203776825&q=global+warming+swindle&total=203&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

The link doesn't work, an error accurs.