Some of you might notice that some other items of interest were left out… feel free to fill in the gaps.
A timeline of climate change science
By Matthew Knight for CNN
LONDON, England (CNN) — Climatology was once a small and often overlooked branch of science. But important discoveries made as [early as] the early 19th century have contributed to what is the most important field of scientific study in the world today. Listed below are some key dates in climate change history.
1824
French physicist Joseph Fourier is first to describe a “greenhouse effect” in a paper delivered to Paris’s Académie Royale des Sciences.
1861
Irish physicist John Tyndall carries out research on radiant heat and the absorption of radiation by gases and vapors including CO2 and H2O. He shows that carbon dioxide can absorb in the infrared spectrum, and it can cause a change in temperature. Tyndall famously declares: “The solar heat possesses. . . the power of crossing an atmosphere. But when the heat is absorbed by the planet, it is so changed in quality that the rays emanating from the planet cannot get with the same freedom back into space. Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat, but checks its exit. The result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”
1896
Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first proposes the idea of a man-made greenhouse effect. He hypothesizes that the increase in the burning of coal since the beginning of industrialization could lead to an increase in atmospheric CO2 and heat up the earth. Arrhenius was trying to find out why the earth experienced ice ages. He thought the prospect of future generations living “under a milder sky” would be a desirable state of affairs.
1938
British engineer Guy Stewart Callendar compiles temperature statistics in a variety of regions and finds that over the previous century the mean temperature had risen markedly. He also discovers that CO2 levels had risen 10 percent during the same period. He concludes that CO2 was the most likely reason for the rise in temperature.
1955
John Hopkins University researcher Gilbert Plass proves that increased levels of carbon dioxide could raise atmospheric temperature. By 1959 Plass is boldly predicting that the earth’s temperature would rise more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
In the same year chemist Hans Suess detects the fossil carbon produced by burning fuels, although he and Roger Revelle – director of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography – declare that the oceans must be absorbing the majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they decide to conduct further research.
1958
Revelle and Suess employ geochemist Charles Keeling to continuously monitor CO2 levels in the atmosphere. After only two years of measurements in Antarctica an increase is visible. The graph becomes widely known as the Keeling Curve and becomes an icon of global warming debate and continues to chart the year on year rise in CO2 concentrations to this day.
1970
The first “Earth Day” takes place on April 22nd across America. Twenty million people participate in the event organized by Democratic Senator Gaylord Nelson. It follows and precedes a series of U.S. Department for Energy reports highlighting concern about global warming.
1979
The first World Climate Conference is held in Geneva attended by a range of scientists and leads to the establishment of the World Climate Program.
1985
Scientists at the World Climate Program conference at Villach in Austria confidently predict that increased CO2 concentrations will lead to a significant rise in the mean surface temperatures of the earth. A hole in the ozone layer is discovered over Antarctica.
1987
Officially the hottest year on record to date. Three years later the 1980s is confirmed as the hottest decade since records began.
1988
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The IPCC will provide reports based on scientific evidence which reflect existing viewpoints within the scientific community.
Parts of the Mississippi river are reduced to a trickle and Yellowstone National Park becomes a tinderbox. In June, Dr James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies delivers his famous testimony to the U.S. Senate. Based on computer models and temperature measurements he is 99 percent sure that the [human caused] greenhouse effect has been detected and it is already changing the climate.
1990
The IPCC delivers its first assessment on the state of climate change, predicting an increase of 0.3 °C each decade in the 21st century — greater than any rise seen over the previous 10,000 years.
1992
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development — better known as the Earth Summit — takes place in Rio de Janeiro attended by 172 countries. It is the first unified effort to get to grips with global warming and leads to negotiations which result in the Kyoto Protocol.
1995
The hottest year on record. Four years later the 1990s are confirmed as the hottest decade in 1000 years.
The IPCC report for that year states that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
1997
The Kyoto Protocol: Industrialized countries agree to cut their emissions of six key greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2 percent. Under the terms of the agreement each country — except developing countries — commits to a reduction by 2008 — 2012 compared to 1990 levels. Notably, the U.S. Congress vote 95 to 0 against any treaty which doesn’t commit developing countries to “meaningful” cuts in emissions.
2001
Newly elected U.S. President George W. Bush renounces the Kyoto Protocol stating that it will damage the U.S. economy. The third IPCC report declares that the evidence of global warming over the previous 50 years being fueled by human activities is stronger than ever.
2003
Europe experiences one the hottest summers on record causing widespread drought claiming the lives of over 30,000 people.
2005
Following ratification by Russia — the 19th country to do so — in November 2004, the Kyoto Protocol becomes a legally binding treaty. America and Australia continue their refusal to sign up claiming reducing emissions would damage their economies.
2007
175 countries in total have ratified the Kyoto Treaty. Under new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Australia ratifies the treaty. The IPCC report for a fourth time states that “warming of the climate is unequivocal” and that the levels of temperature and sea rise in the 21st century will depend on the extent or limit of emissions in the coming years.
Former vice-president Al Gore and the IPCC jointly win the Nobel Peace Prize for services to environmentalism.
2008
160 square miles of the Wilkins Shelf breaks away from the Antarctic coast. Scientists are concerned that climate change may be happening faster than previously thought.
Following the Bali talks/roadmap, negotiators from 180 countries launch formal negotiations towards a new treaty to mitigate climate change at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/31/Intro.timeline/index.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1970-2004
Landscheidt contineus the work of Jose et al regarding “Shaker Theory” and the impact it has on climate and weather phenomenon. Shows how the past warming trends and ice ages are directly assoicated with torque forces exterted with in the solar system as related to the center of mass of the solar system.
Because of the precise mathmatical and mechanical nature of this system, he accurately predicts many phenomenon, including increased temps, El Ninos, La ninas, droughts, etc .. and predicts that a cooling will occurr around 2007-2010 and a full blown ice age by 2030. Also predicts that Solarcycle 24 and 25 would be weak, and would be responsible for the comming cooling.
2007 – numerous astrophysics groups in Russia and other places come to the same conclusion as Landscheidt based on different methods.
2006-2008. – Solar Cycle 24 acting according to the Landscheidt and other astrophysics guys, fulliling predictions.
2007 – 2008 – see largest cool down in recent history, as confirmed by ARGOS, Satellites, and land based measurments.
2009 and onward – bafoons pass carbon caps. … Globe continues to cool … crop yeilds decrease due to carbon caps and cooling … food prices skyrocket …. Billions of people (primarily the poor) starve to death. World population cut by 50%.
Althought this is slightly “off topic,” I’m not certain where else to post it (help me, Tony)!
The other day I promissed Pierre I’d begin digging through my research papers on the “Equatorial Pacific Warm Pool” (also known by other names). As I began the task of sorting through thousands of papers, I came across “Reverberations Of The Pacific Warm Pool,” an article I believe is one of the best overall descriptions of this mysterious body of water.
And I do mean mysterious: billions and billions of dollars have been spent by just about every major country in the world in an attempt to unravel its secrets. And no wonder: many, many scientists believe this is the key to worldwide weather patterns. The article, which I believe was published around 1999, may be a little outdated but it’ll give you a jump start into this incredible mystery! It can be found on the ‘net at: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/WarmPool/printall.php
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
May be they should consult the New York Times…
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640/print
8)
1engineer said:
“Now that’s rich. Curing cancer? Curing AIDS? Heck, providing clean water for people to drink? I’d say any of those are more important than climate change science. The absolute hubris and condescension is astounding.”
Interesting comments. Don’t make any sense, but interesting none the less.
From what I understand about cancer and AIDS, they’re both viruses and until someone can crack the code to cure viruses, you’ll have to rely on minimizing their impact.
For cancer, keep away from known carcenigens. For AIDS, a good start would be to keep your thingy in your pants and out of others, and keep others’ out of yours.
As far as clean water is concerned, that has little to do with research and more to do with money. Unfortunately, those areas in greatest need of clean water also have some of the most dispicable, greedy, and oppressive governments. Until those social problems can be cleaned up, no amount of money poured into such areas will do any good.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
2008, April 1:
“Today, on April Fool’s Day, we’re proud to announce that the Antarctic Peninsula, reaching northwards towards South America and at present experiencing catastrophic local warming due to anthropogenic global warming, has been renamed Al Gore Peninsula to honor the unparalleled work done by Al Gore to heighten public awareness of the serious predicament in which the burning of fossil fuels by the industrialized world has put mankind.
There was a close tie between the new name given today to the stricken peninsula and Anthropogenic Global Warming Peninsula or AGW Peninsula for short. However, despite the emphasis that the alternative name places on the cause of the cataclysmic global warming that our planet is experiencing, we decided in favor of stressing the dominating role of the former US Vice President in putting a face to climate change.
Although he recently shared the Nobel Peace Prize with an Indian former diesel locomotive industry captain called Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the famous IPCC, Mr. Gore is a highly qualified scientist himself who has been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics by several prominent personalities in the AGW community. Mr. Gore has a strong background in climatology, physics, statistics, and mathematical modeling of climate trends and has done research on the impact of global climate change, especially the soon-to-be-observed effects of rising sea levels on the coastline of Lower Manhattan.
Mr. Gore responded to the renaming of this important Antarctic peninsula by stating that he feels extremely proud to have been chosen for this honor. Mr. Gore also mentioned that he is, in his own words, “worried sick about the climate. The former US VP added, almost like an afterthought, that he now sees “many opportunities to rename quite a few other geographical hot spots to emphasize not only the rising global temperature but, in particular, the accelerating global temperature rise that has been witnessed this past winter season with record high temperatures and practically no snow fall across the United States and Canada”. What comes to mind is the possibility of substituting CO2 Island for Manhattan.
Mr. Gore will shortly attend a meeting on Al Gore Peninsula to celebrate the renaming and to highlight the melting of the entire Antarctica.
Message delivered on April Fool’s Day by the .7C International Commission on Global Temperature Rise, so named after the .7C rise in the global temperature since the end of the 19th century.
if CNN don’t believe the globe is warming then none of us should believe the globe is warming…aren’t they giving news, view and reviews minus bias? i mean it’s ted turner’s network! why would they peddle lies and mis.information. blog writer discipline yourself
2011
After Solar Cycle 24 still hasn’t shown any signs of starting, Satellite sources say that temps around the world have now droped 1.43 C (2.57 F) since they peaked in 1998. James Hansen claims in his GISS temp database that 2010 tied for the 2nd hottest year on record.
The average growing season, particularly north and south of 30 degrees have shrunk by 3-4 weeks, destroying many crops including devastating effects on fruit trees.
Al Gore is campaigning to raise another 300 million dollars to renew his TV ad blitz to convince people that if they don’t reduce CO2 levels, the world will burn up, as soon as the mini-ice age ends, which according to him is caused by burning too many fossil fuels. However the Nobel Peace commitee voted to ask that he reimburse the $750,000 prize money back. Al Gore demands a recount of the Nobel Committee.
The Southern Polar Ice, has bridged the gap between Antartica and the Southern tip of South America. However a 160 sq mile chunk of ice broke off of that ice bridge broke off during the Southern Hemisphere summer and Al Gore claims this is proof of Global Warming.
Several scientists are proposing a new name for the prolonged solar minimum. A 90% scientific consensus calls for naming it the Algorian/Millivanillian Minimum. (give back the award cause you are a fraud)
Algorian/Millivanillian Minimum … bwaaaaaahaaaaahaaa!
😆
ROTFL …
Deanster,
Your post started off well, but in the end you suddenly mutated into Paul Ehrlich.
Not to worry, billions will not die.
I forwarded the post by Watts on solar cycles to my brother who is the head of a team at CERN for an opinion about the data. His reply was: look arround you, everythings melting, only today the BBC have information on their website.
As posted before I have very little faith in anything the BBC writes, however it is difficult to refute without some simple authorative and well researched appraisals of the global weather debate. Are there any one or two sets of data that refute the BBC claims that I can use to set my brother on the right track? Do you have data on the thickness of the ice caps, are they really disappearing if so why? or are they getting thicker? I hear both opinions and it is surprisingly hard to find information on the web.
REPLY: Take a look at the following link:
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
Kent (21:13:27):
[On BBC article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm ]
“They missunderstood the theory completely and only talk about earths weak magnetic field solar wind,while ignoring the main driver of the whole theory, the suns magnetic field as it relates to sunspot activity.”
The BBC article and the real paper read like different stories. While the BBC talks about solar burps, the paper spends more time talking about neutron and muon flux. It does mention sporadic events, but they are clearly not solar sourced because they show up in neutron counters and one showed up in a muon counter. The abstract and links to the full paper are at http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/2/024001/
The BBC article has changed since I saw it last night, I think the original did not have Svensmark’s comments.
I am not impressed with Sloan’s “the IPCC has got it right,” that conclusion is a reach. (It is in the BBC article, not the paper.) Even if Sloan completely disproved the GCR connection, he would still have to explain away the centuries of sun/climate correlations before his scientific skepticism should allow him to conclude that the IPCC is right.
Nice job picking out the facts and “discoveries” what fit to your bias. I just wondering when you where going to pick up the facts of such things, like the fact that this year is so cold and it doesn’t seem to be getting warmer. There is a lot more pressing matters ,then if global warming is real or not, like aids, world hunger, or cancer take your pick.
Besides us humans as a producer of population are nothing compared to nature. With all the pollution that we produce it can’t compare to the amount of CO2 like from volcanoes or a wildfire. There’s even more CO2 being produced by decomposing plants and animals then by us. Sure I agree that CO2 couldn’t be great is large amounts for us or the environment, but there is no sure facts and statistical proof that Global warming exists. If you look at all the facts there is evidence being brought forth to show that Global warming probably doesn’t exist. Remember it’s not just weather the facts are true, but to also have ALL the facts, not the parts that are convenient for you.
Julian Williams, Glaciers and ice sheets transport ice from where it doesn’t melt to where it does melt. This is true of all glaciers and icesheets, at all times. At the height of the glacial maximum when icesheets were 20 miles north of London those icesheets were melting.
The issue is whether glaciers and icesheets are gaining or losing mass. This is a fairly easy question to answer for a small well studied glacier, but a much harder question to answer for continental icesheets (Antarctica and Greenland). And even if we knew the answer (overall for all the Earth’s icesheets) with some precision, which we don’t, large icesheets are effected by climate changes going back centuries and even millenia.
So glaciers and icesheets tell us nothing useful about recent climate change, which is what we are primarily interested in.
However, sea ice does. Sea ice extent can be accurately measured and seems highly sensitive to short term climate change. Over the last year we have seen the largest increase in sea ice on record (and by a large margin).
It remains to be seen whether this trend continues, but there is no question that the Earth’s climate has cooled sharply over the last year. The sea ice says so unambiguously.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Note i understand this is the complete satellite record.
Otherwise, I could go on at length at the dishonesty of the media and others of (deliberately?) confusing glacier and icesheet melting which would happen whether the climate was warming or cooling, and changes in sea ice extent and glacier mass.
Those are great answers, thanks
Also seemingly left put of the article is the recent IPCC report downgrading the amount of warming (again), as well as stating that even if everyone signed onto Kyoto it would basically have no effect on climate.
2050 (according to Ted Turner):
Food runs out and humans begin to cannibalize each other.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/04/02/turner-iraqi-insurgents-patriots-inaction-warming-cannibalism
BTW 3/4 of what I read on this site goes over my head but what I do understand looks like common sense, especially when you moderate your language to my level.
I am curious; There is a lot of consensus on this forum, how far does that consensus spread? Have I struck on a bunch of mavericks that are largely ignored in teh wider scientific community or are the opinions expressed here representative.
I keep hearing that the scientific community really are in agreement about global warming. My brother is a scientist and he seems welland truely taken in.
For myself I came to this site because the same proponents for centralised undemocratic government (IE the EU) have latched on to green issues as a reason for giving them even more powers. (They are really flogging this global warming scares for political ends)
One of the most striking aspects of this EU debate is that there is no debate allowed. Sceptics are really locked out by all sorts of tricks, I can see some of the same tricks happening in the climate debate.
Recently I have begun to wonder are we living in a new cultural period. The age of enlightenment brought us democracy and debate, maybe the age of technology is bringing us a new sort of society, one where people live in a bubble of unreality and do not really want to know the truth (debate) and do not really want to be responsible for their own destiny (democracy). The two go hand in hand.
Think of it this way, they are sitting in their living rooms eating popcorn watching wars where their enemies get zapped. The supermarkets remain supplied, the economy goes on booming. Then they watch the glaciers melting and the supermarkets are still full.
What I am wondering is are these people hooked on hysterical news because that sort of news gives them something gripping to watch on television. In their hearts they think the world will go on as before, someone else will always look after the outside world and keep their supermarkets stuffed.
If you have this sort of mentality you really are not interested about whether the news is true or not. Suppose the media have unconsciously understood that their paymasters are not interested in the truth, in fact truth is bad for their sales figures, their audience would switch off if the film they were watching lost it’s hold on them.
Fortunately you are scientists and in the end our scientific instincts for the truth will prevail, but in politics it is the opposite. The lies that have been seeded by the proponent of centralized government were put down 30- 50 years ago and they are still not exposed properly.
Anyway this is one of the reasons I have been fascinated watching what is going on on this forum
Julian Williams:
Not all, or necessarily even a majority, of those who post here or at other climate sites are scientists.
As a scientist, but not a “climate” scientist, I find some of the material here of great interest as it often goes unreported in the media and is , more often than is justified, deliberately shut out of the principle scientific journals.
But be wary, there is lot of crap out there masquerading as science. A lot of it is being pushed by the AGW cultists, but some is peddled by self-proclaimed climate skeptics too.
This is good site. There are many others. I find the best way to navigate them is to look for cross-links at the good sites. See The blogroll above.
Ted Turner’s view of climate future:
If steps aren’t taken to stem global warming, “We’ll be eight degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow,” Turner said during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose that aired Tuesday.
“Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals,” said Turner, 69. “Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable.”
Source: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/04/03/turner_0404.html
Climate predictions from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
2008
Global temperatures ‘to decrease’
La Nina caused some of the coldest temperatures in memory in China
2013
But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years
I am truly amazed that any word processor at the BBC could type the letters “C O L D”. It must have required a high level management security override. The public may start to think, can’t have that now can we, that there is some connection between high world food prices and extreme weather events in Asia. See I didn’t use the “C” word.
Who what event is the BBC counting on in five years to keep the AGW fraud going? Now let me think! An image if forming, yes I can see it clearly now.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif
To bad the BBC can’t fall back on that old-time-religion and sacrifice a few virgins to the Sun. I suspect the problem is that virgins are in short supply in England these days. Perhaps burning a few Witches or AGW Deniers would do instead. But wait, can’t burn Witches either, alternate lifestyle minorities as protected, AGW Deniers will have to do!
The spin machine is starting up and the game is afoot. I will bring the dip and chips if you bring the beer.
Mike
2013
Global temperatures show signs of warming.
“Global temperatures this year [2008] will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
…
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years.
Experts at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for forecasting in Exeter said the world could expect another record temperature within five years or less, probably associated with another episode of El Nino.”
So, I guess the debate is on hold for a while. Let’s all go home and fix the insulation. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
@Julian in UK
That ice is melting only proves that it is getting warmer in that particular region.
Warming in itself does not prove an anthroprogenic link. Indeed the s. hemispere and Artarctica are cooling.
When your brothere says: “Look around you, everything is melting!”, it’s like saying on a November day that summer is coming just because the temperature is going up on that particular day.
This only underscores the weakness of their science. That’s all they have for arguments.
Following on from Ric Werme’s “2013” comment, the BBC broadcast the report about the cooling effect of La Nina in last night’s (Thursday) 10 o’clock main evening news, with the nice animated sequence, provided by Hadley, showing how it’s cooling the Pacific.
They predicted we’re in for a cooler summer this year – not to be confused with an earlier Hadley forecasts during the day of “wetter and warmer”. (Warmer? Cooler? Who cares – it’s all consistent with AGW, as was stated by a Hadley talking-head on Channel 4’s Midday News ).
The BBC showed a temperature chart, with temperatures reaching a maximum in what looked liked about 2002, and dropping since then. Wasn’t made clear if this was supposed to be for the UK or for the world, but as 1998 didn’t stand out as anything special it looked decidedly odd.
The BBC also said that some climatologists believe temperatures have peaked and that the climate may be much more resistant to change then was previously thought, although the overwhelming majority of scientists (sic) still believe Global Warming is continuing and is being caused by Man. No need to worry, though – this year’s expected dip in the temperature would only be a temporary blip.
Not sure what to make of this. Was it just another example of the BBC pushing it’s usual AGW line? Or does it show them beginning to have doubts?
There was a spot on BBC news last night about the fact that 2007 will be cooler, but weasel words about “the trend is upwards” – the tone seemed rather “Methinks he dost protest too much”. I’m wondering whether the March 08 HADCRUT3 figure (which we should get any time now) is going to be particularly low, and this is management of expectations…
But they have made a testable prediction – another ‘record’ temperature within 5 years or less. It’s going to be an interesting 5 years…
Paul Clark: Not so sure if “testable predictions” mean that much to Hadley, quite honestly.
Remember their “it’s going to be the hottest summer ever”, at the start of 2007? Turned out to be unusually wet and cold – the wettest summer, in fact, in over 100 years.
When queried about this on yesterday’s Channel 4 Midday News, a Hadley spokesman stated that weeks of torrential rain and a truly miserable summer were all quite consistent with Global Warming theory. The interviewer – Krishnan Guru-Murthy – had difficulty concealing his amusement.
Made me laugh as well – but then I’m easily amused. No wonder these people have so little credibility amongst the population at large.