Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
Recent Comments
- Allan Shelton on NASA Sea Level
- Disillusioned on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Ulric Lyons on Technology Advances
- oeman50 on NASA Sea Level
- Gordon Vigurs on NASA Sea Level
- Lasse on NASA Sea Level
- Scott Allen on “getting smaller”
- Greg in NZ on NASA Sea Level
- arn on “getting smaller”
- Gordon Vigurs on “fair & equitable”
But… but thats not a peer reviewed paper…. Heh
In other words, take 30 years of natural variability, extrapolate it into the future and hit the panic button. Thank heavens Climate Science has moved on since then.
Oh, wait………….
Remember that in 1988 Brother Jim went before Congress proclaiming that based on 12 years of manipulated data we were heading for a point of no return due to uncontrollable warming. At least in the 70s they were working with a bit more data.
Unlike some I did not have the pleasure of reading about the coming ice age in my school text books as that came after I left school. I was paying attention to the environment, probably because I was a Hippie during that time period and anything that the establishment was doing to Mother Nature was much discussed among the group. When I realized that Nature was so impressed that humans were going to control pollution that nature shifted into a warming phase I decided to become a bit more skeptical.
If you remove the alarmist crap from what was announced in the 70s, the scientists were more on track then than the so-called Climatologists of today. In the coming years we will find that the globe recovered a bit from the LIA until the 30s and overall the cooling resumed. Without the “Proper Adjustments” there is no valid proof that the globe has been warming or is warmer than in the 30s. Through out SST as they are Best Guestamets, if that. It is more likely SST is adjusted to fit a desired / needed result.
The globe could have cooled by 2C since the 30s and we would not know it because of the corrupted records.
Remember, children, it’s been known for a long time “how to be right about the climate…always!”
An excerpt:
The article continues with detailed suggestions on what to say about global cooling and global warming…
ps needlessly to say, the author of the remarks above (from a 1982 opinion piece in Italian is a climatologist, and currently a fervent supporter of AGW.
Oops…a couple of errors and I can’t fix it. Feel free to, Steve: “meteorology” and “no one can argue against”
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw29_proceedings/Reeves.pdf
My summary of a NOAA paper, that somehow Peterson missed in his paper.
1972 – Kukla-Mathews publishes in Science, an article about the end of the current inter glacial. Also writes a letter to Nixon in 1972, specifically warning about global cooling.
1973 – First Climate office started in Feb 1973 (ad hoc Panel on the Present Inter Glacial). This was after a meeting of 42 of the most prominent climatologists, and apparently there was consensus about cooling. Especially as the NOAA, NWS and ICAS were involved.
1974 – Office of Climate Dynamics opened.
1978 -Carter signs Climate Program Act, partly due to the SEVERE WINTER experienced the preceding winter.
Also see:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278
As Maurizio shows, the CIA also believed that cooling was occupying, and that it was here to stay.
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/1970s-global-cooling-consensus-a-fact-of-history-my-article-in-spiked-online/
sigh:
As Maurizio shows, the CIA also believed that cooling was occupying…
should be:
As Maurizio shows, the CIA also believed that cooling was occurring…
Les – I can see your correction but… where is the original?
It’s funny: the same language about meteorologists is used in referring to the heat in Russia in 2010.
Maurizio: My original post is still awaiting moderation. It has URLs, so I suppose that is slowing it down.
Gosh.
I guess we are to assume there is supposed to be some take-away from this, eh?
Maybe it’s:
Science is always wrong?
Science does not advance?
Wrong predictions mean the end of climate science?
It’s a conspiracy?
Maybe it’s just because it’s Halloween.
What silliness.
Bje – couple of take-aways: it’s difficult to forecast, especially about the future; and “science” should stick to learn the past, leaving divination to other, often less rigorous disciplines. Ah, and Climatology has long been the prisoner of the future, virtually guaranteeing its inability to understand much about the climate
Bje
The answer to your attempt at a rhetorical question is staring you in the face: much of what is called climate science is not science at all, especially when it consists of wild extrapolations from poor quality data. The only conclusion you need to draw about other scientific fields is to watch very carefully for the distorting effects of billion dollar funding, whether by business or by governments, and for scientists colluding to close down debate. If you see these things going on in other areas, they will probably turn out to be pretty poor science as well.
bje don’t forget the golden oldie ‘There’s no news like old news!’. At least this is almost about climate, over on ‘the Blackboard’ they’re talking about lunch invitations.
bje,
Science is always wrong?
No one ever said that. You made that up.
bje
Science does not advance?
No one here said that. You made it up.
bje
Wrong predictions mean the end of climate science?
No one said this either. You made it up.
The predictions of the ‘manmade global warming’ hypothesis are continually failing. When a hypothesis does not get supporting evidence it must be discarded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
bje
It’s a conspiracy?
Where in the post is that talked about? You made it up.
bje: your
Science is always wrong?
Science is often wrong. Buts it is science that shows this.
Science does not advance?
Science advances by the very act of being wrong.
Wrong predictions mean the end of climate science?
Wrong predictions do not doom climate science. Making political decisions based on wrong predictions delays and inhibits political consensus based on science.
It’s a conspiracy?
Never attribute to conspiracy, that which can be accounted for by incompetence.
Wrong predictions mean the end of climate science?
He used the words ‘climate science’. He did not use the words ‘global warming’. They are not interchangeable terms.
The more global warming believers talk the more people see how poor their arguments are. Oh that they would post 10 times as many comments.
From:
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
“…..
We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!”
Yes, that is the same Stephen Schneider.
Yes, he’s saying that GHGs tend to cause warming and aerosols tend to cause cooling. Most scientists agree with both ideas.
But this was not a prediction. Note that everything in the last paragraph is conditional. He’s not predicting that this will happen. He’s saying that it could happen with a sustained, four-fold increase in aerosols.
H2O causes cooling when CO2 is increased. There is no such thing as runaway warming from CO2.
There is no such thing as runaway warming from CO2.
Non sequitur. I didn’t say anything about any of that.
But there must, of necessity, be runaway warming from co2 for the global warming hypothesis to be right. Otherwise there’s nothing to scare people with. So if you didn’t say it you must have meant it.
More of your fun words games.
Steve, you think I’m the one picking fights?
This has absolutely nothing to do with my comment, which was nothing more than a short summary of what Schenider said.
I think that an interesting feature of the Schneider and Rasool (an associate of James Hansen incidentally) document was this:
“It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.”
Are we to believe that the scientific understanding of GHG physics has altered so radically since 1971 that the current alarmist IPCC predictions of 3+ deg rise are now credible? After all, Warmists continuously inform us that GHG science was understood as far back as the nineteenth century.
Why has the temperature rise for a CO2 doubling apparently changed from 3 all of a sudden?
Computer models of entirely hypothetical positive feedbacks that have, after around three decades, failed entirely to manifest themselves, perchance?
Here is some more stuff from the past.
100 years of warming and cooling fears
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf
Is this Stephen Schneider chilling out?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko&feature=player_embedded
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640
(150 of global warming and cooling fears)
http://www.almanac.com/sites/new.almanac.com/files/1895_cvr1_0.png
(1895-2008 warming and cooling fears)
http://anotherviewonclimate.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/time-announces-approaching-ice-age/
(numerous new ice-age articles from 1970s)
Rasool ice age using James Hansen model predicting possible new ice age in the 1970s
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/
I have more stuff, but this should do for now.
bje:
Why is it silliness to bring these things up when there have been extensive efforts recently by warmists to promulgate the idea that there were no serious claims by scientists in the 70’s about the possibility and even likelihood of global cooling?
Sorry, but this sounds like a “nothing to see here …” ploy.
Well, no one directly addressed the purpose of Goddard’s post above. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
In fact, Goddard just sticks it out without stating why. Zero. Zilch. Nada. No comment whatsoever. It’s a common tactic knowing the troops will line up and spin it the way their confirmation bias drives them. It’s exactly why denialism and conspiracy theories can exist.
Thanks for illustrating it for us. Continue on with your conspiracy theories.
Feed another Troll!!!
Is English your native language?
There was no conspiracy mentioned. All that is being provided is research from the 70s that was related to global cooling.
A person has to make a living some how and what is better than to be able to ride the fear wagon and receive government grants. There have been entire institutions and NGOs dedicated to “Riding the Fear Wagon”. If you can get it why not receive your share of the money being passed around in Make Work Programs that the research community has become.
The old saying: If you can not do, Teach. If you can Not Teach,Research. What else is there for the unemployable collage graduate to do? You go to school to learn how to spread and get a certificate of BS then with further study you write a thesis to prove you can Pile it Higher and Deeper and are awarded a certificate claiming your ability PHD.
In the olden days those who were not able to contribute in a meaningful way to society became priests to promote their faith. Times have not changed!
Of course no conspiracy was mentioned. Conspiracy theorists are the last to recognize what they are doing So do denialists.
You write:
“All that is being provided is research from the 70s that was related to global cooling.”
Gee, golly whiz. Did you ever consider taking remedial reading lessons? Did you note what I wrote, that it was provided to us with no context whatsoever?
Gosh.
Hi BJ
To understand the context to this, you need to go back over the last week’s posts.
Paul
BJE:
Your comprehension level is below radar.
those who have been reading this site since yesterday are just following the tread in the conversation that was caused by some claiming there was no evidence of scientific predictions of cooling from the 70s.
You probably knew that but wanted to disrupt the flow of the investigation with your BS diversion!
No context was required for those with average intelligence that know how to search past posts.
Bje had 10 replies responding to just one and complaining about… lack of responses. Perhaps he/she’s got a faulty browser. For me, am not in the business of pontificating about “the purpose” of anybody’s blog, thank you very much…
You have a problem reading my reply also. Seems to be endemic here.
Good luck with that.
If you are watching a movie, do you expect each subsequent line in the movie to recap the entire storyline?
Bje – I have replied to your original comment. You asked what to take away, I told you what to take away. If you disagree with my specific reply feel free to comment about it. So far, you have not, and there is only a couple of generic comments from you that could have been written in reply to anything and as such have little intrinsic value.
bje:
Definition for “IT” from dictionary dot com. This is the first 4 of 17! 😉
(used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): It has whitewall tires and red upholstery. You can’t tell a book by its cover.
2.
(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.
3.
(used to represent a group understood or previously mentioned): The judge told the jury it must decide two issues.
4.
(used to represent a concept or abstract idea understood or previously stated): It all started with Adam and Eve. He has been taught to believe it all his life.
When a query is meaning less, it is like being asked to define “IT”. There is your answer
fascinating. Goddard and a few of his followers have found scientists who thought there was a global cooling, possibly catastrophic. Yes that is true, no one I know has ever denied that some scientists believed this. After all there had been measurable cooling to the period described. and there were large amounts of aerosols being dumped into the atmosphere. I remember New York and LA and the smog was MUCH worse than today.
But there also was peer reviewed research back then, and there was absolutely NO CONSENSUS. there were plenty of scientists who believed in global warming in the 70’s and then there was concerted research and the results were overwhelmingly for global warming and against global cooling, and ALL the cooling advocates QUICKLY became convinced they were wrong. I am waiting for a prominent climate scientist to declare that he has changed his mind because he read a non peer reviewed blog post by an engineer that proves the greenhouse theory is wrong. Just think how much more famous and richer he would be if HE was the one to save mankind from this unscientific group think and conspiracy.
If you believe that the cooling from 1945-1975 was due to aerosols, then you also have to believe that the subsequent warming was largely due to the removal of aerosols.
TonyD:
The locations where you claim mass pollution are only a minor portion of the entire globe!
Remember that when you again claim the UHI effect is only in a minor portion of the globe!
You do not know many people or you are still in denial because I was banned from a warming promotion site for providing evidence that some scientists promoted the coming Ice Age in the 70s.
The first Europeans to visit the LA Basin observed a smoke filled region due to the forest fires burning out of control in the foot hills. Smog is not a modern day invention in LA.
You will not see any prominent climate scientists change sides because all the Prominent Climate researchers do not believe in Catastrophic Global warming. Only the frauds that are claiming to be scientists are still promoting that garbage. Along with the high priests of the AGW church.