For Hyak: Photos of glacial recession on Mt Hood?

Hyak, I agree on all points.<br><br>These types of years tend to scare us into thinking the worse.<br><br>Fact is there have been similar droughts and of longer duration than a single year in the past in this area. We were probably overdue.<br><br>Alan

Does anyone know when the the term "global warming" first appeared in the lexicon? Was it in the early 90's? I vividly remember the coming ice age predictions in the mid 70's (as a very young child of course). But I can't pinpoint the first mention of global warming ... in modern times:<br><br> pages.zoom.co.uk/cosmicelk/GlobalWarming.htm Interesting reading.

I remember as a kid in the early 70s hearing of the coming Ice Age. Of course this was due to global cooling caused by pollution blocking out the sun, or something like that.<br><br>In the 80's it became the Ozone hole scare, later to be learned the ozone hole is a normal occurance that changes with the seasons. You never hear of the ozone hole anymore. <br><br>Now its the GW stuff.......Its always something, its always bad and its always caused by MAN.

In the 80's it became the Ozone hole scare, later to be learned the ozone hole is a normal occurance that changes with the seasons.  You never hear of the ozone hole anymore. 

<br><br>Yes, the ozone hole is a seasonal thing, but I don't think I've ever read (in the mainstream press) that ozone depletion was a myth. I just did a quick google on "ozone depletion" and found this NASA page:<br><br> www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/history.html

If you scan down the page to "Current Goverment regulations" you'll find what sound to me like pretty stringent actions to phase out CFCs. These protocols are still in effect. My interpretation of the history is that the reason you don't hear about the ozone hole anymore is that we're doing something about it.<br><br><br>

Hyak - interesting logic. If memory serves you are using an logical fallacy called "poisoning the well" - in other words, attaching something that may have been shown to be wrong (predictions of a coming ice age) to something else (global warming being caused by man). It was not a convincing tactic in high school debate, and it is not convincing now either. <br><br>Try testing another bit of your thinking - is it so unimaginable that man could affect climate through his activities? It certainly happens on a micro-scale (e.g. go for a nice long run in the L.A. basin when the smog has set in, or better yet go from the paved and built area of downtown Kirkland on a hot summer day to the cool woods of St Edward Park which is typically MUCH cooler yet further from the cooling effects of Puget Sound, and ask yourself this question again). Is it so hard to imagine effects on a macro scale? You don't need to do any hard science thinking for this thought exercise - you can just keep using your gut. This may not change your opinion, but could it allow some shred of doubt creep in?

If memory serves you are using an logical fallacy called "poisoning the well" - in other words, attaching something that may have been shown to be wrong (predictions of a coming ice age) to something else (global warming being caused by man).

<br><br>An article in today's Seattle Times suggests that the "new ice age" problem is still a concern.<br><br> seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationwor...02183544_warm18.html

The concern is about fresh water shutting down currents in the Atlantic, which keep northern Europe and the eastern U.S. warmer than they would otherwise be, given their latitude.