The Antarctic Volcanoes Project Blog: Who is "the father of global warming"?

Monday, September 2, 2019

Who is "the father of global warming"?

https://www.quora.com/Who-is-the-father-of-global-warming/

My reply:
https://www.quora.com/Who-is-the-father-of-global-warming/answer/TL-Winslow

I don’t know who the father of global warming is, but I know who the godfather of global warming is.
On Aug. 8, 1975 Chicago, Ill.-born Columbia U. geophysicist Wallace Smith Broecker - Wikipedia">Wallace Smith "Wally" Broecker (1931-)
published the paper https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu//files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf">Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?> in Science mag., coining the terms "global warming" and "climate change", predicting an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 403 ppm by 2010 along with a global temp increase of 1.10C, with the soundbyte:"If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.”
He went on to utter the soundbyte: "Climate is an angry beast and we are poking at it with sticks", becoming known as "the Godfather of Global Warming".
Okay, I do know who got the label “Father of Global Warming”:
On May 28, 1956 Seattle, Wash.-born geologist-oceanographer Roger Revelle - Wikipedia">Roger Randall Douglas Revelle (1909-91)
published the articleScience: One Big Greenhouse">One Big Greenhouse
in Time mag., containing the soundbyte:
"As the air gets warmer, sea water will get warmer too, and CO2 dissolved in it will return to the atmosphere. More water will evaporate from the warm ocean, and this will increase the greenhouse effect of the CO2. Each effect will reinforce the other, possibly raising the temperature enough to melt the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland, which would flood the earth's coastal lands."
In 1957 Revelle and and Vienna, Austria-born Am. chemist-physicist Hans Suess - Wikipedia">Hans Eduard Suess (1909-93)
published the paper "Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades" in Tellus, which suggests that the rate of absorption of excess CO2 by Earth's oceans is lower than previously estimated, threatening a greenhouse effect leading to global warming, and proposing the Revelle factor - Wikipedia">Revelle Factor, the resistance to absorption of carbon dioxide by the ocean surface layer due to bicarbonate chemistry, which is higher in warm waters, leading to more anthropogenic CO2; Revelle goes on to help create the Internat. Geophysical Year in 1958, and the Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean (CCCO), help found the U. of Calif. San Diego (UCSD), and become Al Gore's professor and mentor at Harvard, becoming known as "the Father of Global Warming".
Revelle later uttered the soundbyte: “Human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future."

In summer 1992 the article https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9e66/9c695effa8fa73ce3fa6bea331c2f85b107a.pdf">"What to do about greenhouse warning: Look before you leap"
, by Austrian-born U. of Va. physicist-engineer Fred Singer - Wikipedia">Siegfried Fred Singer (1924-) and electrical engineer Chauncey Starr - Wikipedia">Chauncey Starr (1912-2007) was published in Cosmos: A Journal of Engineering Issues, containing the soundbyte:
"Drastic, precipitous - and, especially, unilateral - steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent economic controls now would be economically devastating particularly for developing countries.”

It concludes:

"The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time. There is little risk in delaying policy responses.”

Too bad, Seattle, Wash.-born geologist-oceanographer ("Father of Global Warming") Roger Revelle - Wikipedia">Roger Randall Douglas Revelle (1909-91)
added his name to the article after Singer allegedly hoodwinked him, causing Al Gore to call Revelle “senile” and Revelle's grad student Justin Lancaster to to call Singer's actions "unethical", after which Singer sued with the support of the Center for Public Interest in Washington, D.C., receiving a letter of apology from Lancaster sans admission of wrongdoing, only to withdraw his letter in 2006 after Robert Balling et al. continue to claim that Revelle is the article's real author, while Revelle waffled until his 1991 death.TL Winslow's answer to Has there actually been a scientific debate over global warming?

No comments:

What Is the Antarctic Volcanoes Project?

It's too bad the current brouhaha about CO2 is so narrowly focused. So what if a higher concentration in the atmosphere raises global average temps? If higher temps were accompanied by increased atmospheric moisture, it would even out around the world and turn it into a paradise planet, greening the deserts so that the teeming billions could be fed. Cold temperatures are inimical to life, not a goal of life.

Too bad, it might take a lot more CO2 than you think to really change the global weather, but not because it has any control over Earth's surface temperatures. In fact atmospheric CO2 can't melt an ice cube with its 15 micron main radiation wavelength that has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, colder than dry ice (-78.5C).

Why do they call CO2 greenhouse gas? Because plants breathe it, and they pump it into greenhouses to help them grow and thrive. Polar regions and deserts look good in postcards, but who wants to live there. Meanwhile global pop. is zooming, so obviously the real answer is to pump more CO2 and water vapor into the atmosphere to turn the Earth into a greenhouse, turning deserts both hot and cold into lush green crop-growing regions like 35 million years ago when the avg. global temp was 88F and the CO2 level was 1K parts per million (vs. 415 PPM today). So what if we lose some desert polar regions and even some yummy coastline, the adjustments will be inconvenient but temporary, but I prefer shirt-sleeve weather to Frosty the Snowman. How many arctic animals can't adapt to a warmer climate? What animal needs to live in ice and snow and wouldn't like a vacation to Tahiti? They can lose the fat, hair or feathers.

The real question is can we make and keep the global CO2/H20 levels high enough, and for how long? Sooner or later mass global starvation will become unstoppable if world pop. keeps climbing, and this is the way to forestall it, if we act soon enough. Don't give me them Malthusian objections, give me some CO2/H20 solutions. I like a paradise Earth in the possibility window.

So, while the world is debating the horrors, extent or lack thereof of global warming caused by CO2, let's engineer the CO2/H20 solution to making the Earth a warm temperate planet from pole to pole with no deserts or ice wastelands, allowing vastly more food to be grown and turning poor nations rich. I DON'T mean a planet with wild swings between super-hot summers and super-cold winters, but one that is warmer than now everywhere, but moister and greener, with a giant network of plant life helping to avoid extremes. Since CO2 and water vapor are the keys, and the paltry amounts in the atmosphere need to be increased as soon as possible to turn deserts green and get the warming process off to a good start, but the new levels have to be maintained permanently, I'm looking to remote Antarctica (which is really a sea) as the most promising source for unlimited CO2 and water vapor generation, given that noxious emissions (sulfur dioxide, etc.) can be controlled.

This blog is for posting news on the world climate situation, scientific and political, along with my own articles. I'm sure it will start out with hardly any interest or followers, but I'm hoping that it will attract the smartest people eventually and in the end I hope for a global consensus that if it can be done it must be done.

So what is the Antarctic Volcanoes Project? My working idea is that an international effort to reactivate as many volcanoes in Antarctica as possible in an ideal location for distributing the CO2/H20 will produce the best and most cost-effective results. Sorry, one-worlders, it won't give you a license to override and control any country's economy, but if your country is suffering from lack of food you will be too busy expanding farming to care. Hence until I think of or hear about a better way to increase world CO2/H20 levels, this is my pet project. If you are a scientist, please climb aboard my AVP Express and let's make it happen.

It Would Be Funny If It Were's So Sad

It would be funny it weren't so sad, but when the scientists say "greenhouse gas" they are using a malaprop. It should be greenhouse GLASS, because that's why a greenhouse stays warm, by glass walls stopping convection of air and trapping heat. Yes, CO2 is pumped into greenhouses, but not for heating purposes, only to help plants BREATHE. So the whole sucker's game of "greenhouse gas" must truly be for the purpose of stopping more vegetation from growing and feeding the teeming billions. Is that their true goal? Another blip on the horizon is the promise of melting permafrost releasing gigantic amounts of CO2 from the Arctic not Antarctic sector. Let's hope we at least get some more good CO2 that way.

Jan. 14, 2011. Good article on CO2 levels and global temps 30-40 million years ago