Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice

[desy]

Incorrect there was a huge media push of global cooling in the 70's
60 % consensus at that time of global warming, 20% undecided ,and 20% in the cooling camp

I'll add that I'd think it would sell more newspapers if we were reverting back to mammoths and sabre tooth tigers in a ice age than gee its getting warmer out

 

[fskimospy]

Wasn't there huge amounts of evidence of global cooling in the 70's.

Nope.

 

[TerryMathews]

Those making the science do not think it is young and they think their conclusions are solid based on the huge amount of evidence.

So, in short, the scientists are correct because they believe they are correct.

Also, see how this works? I'm arguing with what you actually said.

 

[desy]

Look do you want a a doctor to make an educated guess what is wrong with you or a TV evangelist laying hands on you?
Many of us prefer to take the doctors opinion

 

[fskimospy]

So, in short, the scientists are correct because they believe they are correct.

Also, see how this works? I'm arguing with what you actually said.

That's because I'm not trying to talk out of both sides of my mouth. You wanted to say that you weren't denying the science while denying the science. That's not how this works.

Now you're just trying to dismiss the conclusions that scientists reach because they are inconvenient to your ideology. Interesting how you claim to accept their conclusions sometimes but not others.

 

[TerryMathews]

That's because I'm not trying to talk out of both sides of my mouth. You wanted to say that you weren't denying the science while denying the science. That's not how this works.

Now you're just trying to dismiss the conclusions that scientists reach because they are inconvenient to your ideology. Interesting how you claim to accept their conclusions sometimes but not others.

Hilarious, you accuse me of ideology?

I've not dismissed a thing. You need to review what the word temper means, I guess.

 

[TerryMathews]

Look do you want a a doctor to make an educated guess what is wrong with you or a TV evangelist laying hands on you?
Many of us prefer to take the doctors opinion

Depends on what is wrong with me. Both have their place.

If I'm sick? Physically sick? Doctor, every time. There are certain things though that a man of the cloth is more suited to help with. Loss. Grief. Despair.

 

[Matt1970]

Nope.

It seemed to be enough for the scientists to go public with. A lot of the same scientists are now on the other side of the fence.

 

[fskimospy]

It seemed to be enough for the scientists to go public with. A lot of the same scientists are now on the other side of the fence.

Nope. I can't believe people still believe this myth after so many years. Actually, I'm not; it tells them what they already want to believe.

 

[Matt1970]

Nope. I can't believe people still believe this myth after so many years. Actually, I'm not; it tells them what they already want to believe.

I see you have you own reality on that topic as well.

 

[fskimospy]

I see you have you own reality on that topic as well.

You realize all this was very well documented, right? It was a media driven phenomenon and even at the time those articles were published most climate scientists thought the planet was warming, not cooling. The attempt to compare the two is predictably dishonest.

 

[Jaskalas]

Wasn't there huge amounts of evidence of global cooling in the 70's.

Nope.

The United States certainly cooled after the warmth of the 30s and 40s.

This issue becomes mired in which particular record we're discussing, be it US or Global. Most of the charts from the 70s are likely only showing US temp.

 

[Matt1970]

You realize all this was very well documented, right? It was a media driven phenomenon and even at the time those articles were published most climate scientists thought the planet was warming, not cooling. The attempt to compare the two is predictably dishonest.

Yes, it was very well documented, but as usual you will only want to see what your political agenda will allow you to see. I said it seemed there was enough evidence of global cooling to go public with. And here it is

An early numerical computation of climate effects was published in the journal Science in July 1971 as a paper by S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider, titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate". The paper used rudimentary data and equations to compute the possible future effects of large increases in the densities in the atmosphere of two types of human environmental emissions:[22]

greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide;
particulate pollution such as smog, some of which remains suspended in the atmosphere in aerosol form for years.
The paper suggested that the global warming due to greenhouse gases would tend to have less effect with greater densities, and while aerosol pollution could cause warming, it was likely that it would tend to have a cooling effect which increased with density. They concluded that "An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Stephen H. Schneider penned the "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols" artice.
(Enough evidence to go public)

Stephen_Schneider later changed his stance claiming he errored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

( same scientists are now on the other side of the fence).

Now, your altered version of reality want to tell me what I got wrong again?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, it was very well documented, but as usual you will only want to see what your political agenda will allow you to see. I said it seemed there was enough evidence of global cooling to go public with. And here it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Stephen H. Schneider penned the "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols" artice.
(Enough evidence to go public)

Stephen_Schneider later changed his stance claiming he errored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

( same scientists are now on the other side of the fence).

Now, your altered version of reality want to tell me what I got wrong again?

I really appreciate the unintentional irony of your post.

From your own link:

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945, as well as the possibility of large scale warming due to emissions of greenhouse gases. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[2] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend.[3] The actual increase in this period was 29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse gases in 1968.[4] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's warming effects.[5] In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that a very significant warming of global climate was probable.[6]

Concern peaked in the early 1970s, though "the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then" [2] (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming). This peaking concern is partially attributable to the fact much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. However, climate scientists were aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[12]). Despite that, in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports, and "unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North America in 1972 and 1973...pushed the issue into the public consciousness".[2]

ie: The scientific evidence even then was in favor of global warming; as stated before the global cooling issue was a media driven issue that did not accurately reflect the state of science. The best part is that you clearly mined that link for information that you thought was favorable without understanding it and then had the balls to accuse someone else of only seeing what they want to see. LOL.

Seriously, nice job on self ownage there.

 

[Jaskalas]

Plenty of evidence of the 1970s cooling trend.
History Of How The Hockey Stick Was Manufactured

He relates this issue with the Hockey Stick due to Briffa’s trees, but I found this accurately portrays the common knowledge of the 40s-70s cooling trend, widely acknowledged until changes were made to the historical record in 2000.

 

[jhbball]

Yes, it was very well documented, but as usual you will only want to see what your political agenda will allow you to see. I said it seemed there was enough evidence of global cooling to go public with. And here it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Stephen H. Schneider penned the "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols" artice.
(Enough evidence to go public)

Stephen_Schneider later changed his stance claiming he errored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

( same scientists are now on the other side of the fence).

Now, your altered version of reality want to tell me what I got wrong again?

LOL, self ownage.

 

[IGBT]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01...tex-on-global-cooling-in-1974-special-report/

But scientists were quick to reject any link of record cold to man-made global warming. See:

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer refutes claims that global warming is causing record cold: ‘Polar vortices have been around forever. They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere’

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue rejects claim that global warming is causing record cold: ‘This polar vortex episode is the global warming media’s most recent ‘Snapchat’ message: after a few seconds, explanation just dissolves’

Wash Post Throws Cold Water on Idea that Global Warming Is Causing Record Cold: ‘It’s still heavily debated…Elizabeth Barnes of Colorado State disputed the link’ – WaPo: ‘For now, the consensus view still holds that global warming will bring fewer cold snaps to places like the U.S., not more. The IPCC in 2007 predicted that there was ‘likely to be a decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks… in [northern hemisphere] winter in most areas.’

U.S. News: ‘Is Climate Change Causing the ‘Polar Vortex’? Article rebuts: Claim ‘appears unsupported by the observations’

Warmists Claim: ‘Global warming is probably contributing to the record cold’ – ‘Global warming can make cold snaps even worse’

Real Science rebuttal: Experts : Cold Used To Be Caused By Cold, But Is Now Caused By Heat - ’How can anyone claim that a rapidly warming Arctic would produce record cold air? How can -65F Arctic air be melting ice? The assertions are ludicrous beyond comprehension. Arctic ice extent is normal. Northern Hemisphere snow has been near record highs.’

 

[Matt1970]

I really appreciate the unintentional irony of your post.

From your own link:




ie: The scientific evidence even then was in favor of global warming; as stated before the global cooling issue was a media driven issue that did not accurately reflect the state of science. The best part is that you clearly mined that link for information that you thought was favorable without understanding it and then had the balls to accuse someone else of only seeing what they want to see. LOL.

Seriously, nice job on self ownage there.

This is why you continually get called dishonest. I never once said the overwhelming evidence was for global cooling, or that all the scientists concurred. That's what you want for me to have said, but I never said it. Like I continually have to say to you and you continually refuse to do, go back and look at what I actually said, not what you think I said. Here it is for reference, and you even quoted it yourself.

It seemed to be enough for the scientists to go public with. A lot of the same scientists are now on the other side of the fence.

You tell me I am wrong, and then 2 posts later seem to agree with me:

even at the time those articles were published .

How anyone standing next to you doesn't throw up from being overdizzy with spin is beyond me. When scientists publish articles, that means to everyone without a political agenda that they "Went public". I actually proved what I said, but because you think I said something I didn't, you dismiss my proof.

 

[fskimospy]

This is why you continually get called dishonest. I never once said the overwhelming evidence was for global cooling, or that all the scientists concurred. That's what you want for me to have said, but I never said it. Like I continually have to say to you and you continually refuse to do, go back and look at what I actually said, not what you think I said. Here it is for reference, and you even quoted it yourself.



You tell me I am wrong, and then 2 posts later seem to agree with me:



How anyone standing next to you doesn't throw up from being overdizzy with spin is beyond me. When scientists publish articles, that means to everyone without a political agenda that they "Went public". I actually proved what I said, but because you think I said something I didn't, you dismiss my proof.

Lol. This is why you ARE dishonest. This is your original post on it:

Wasn't there huge amounts of evidence of global cooling in the 70's.

There sure wasn't, as evidenced by your own link. Unless you mean 'minority scientific opinion' = 'huge amounts of evidence'.

Truly, the spin is dizzying.

 

[Matt1970]

Lol. This is why you ARE dishonest. This is your original post on it:



There sure wasn't, as evidenced by your own link. Unless you mean 'minority scientific opinion' = 'huge amounts of evidence'.

Truly, the spin is dizzying.

Huge enough to go public with, as proven. Enjoy your dishonesty. If I have a huge pile of cash, does that mean I have the majority of the cash opn the earth?

 

[fskimospy]

Huge enough to go public with, as proven. Enjoy your dishonesty. If I have a huge pile of cash, does that mean I have the majority of the cash opn the earth?

So someone publishing a paper = 'huge amounts of evidence'? Seriously, those are some amazing attempts at spinning this. You were full of shit and got called on it. Then you doubled down and owned yourself with some links you hadn't read.

Best to stop digging.

 

[Matt1970]

So someone publishing a paper = 'huge amounts of evidence'? Seriously, those are some amazing attempts at spinning this. You were full of shit and got called on it. Then you doubled down and owned yourself with some links you hadn't read.

Best to stop digging.

Right, I might actually dig down to your level.

If you want to discredit the evidence, go for it. None the less, the evidence was there. Hell, the evidence is still there. We did in fact cool from 1940 till around 1980. Here is more evidence, but I better dare not call it huge right?

https://www.google.com/search?gs_rn...a=N&tab=wi&ei=DaXNUqyBOerJygHS8YHACQ#imgdii=_

 

[bshole]

Regarding the Science of global warming.... it is really tottering at the moment. The purveyors of it are perplexed. Wait another 5 years and their models will be completely discredited. Surely that isn't too long to wait.

Notice that this dimwit who says global warming will destroy humanity thinks it is "unpleasant" that the measured warming is falling far short of expected warming. The sick bastard wants the world to suffer.

IPCC expert Dr. Hans von Storch said in a recent interview "there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect." He went on to lament “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”

“There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”

 

[fskimospy]

Regarding the Science of global warming.... it is really tottering at the moment. The purveyors of it are perplexed. Wait another 5 years and their models will be completely discredited. Surely that isn't too long to wait.

Notice that this dimwit who says global warming will destroy humanity thinks it is "unpleasant" that the measured warming is falling far short of expected warming. The sick bastard wants the world to suffer.

No, it's really not, and the idea that global warming has 'paused' is obviously false as well. Failing to account for the amount of heat the oceans are absorbing simply means that you are going to overestimate land temperatures, not the overall warming of the Earth's climate. People who talk about the 'pause' omit this information because it is inconvenient.

What's really sick is that you want to condemn future generations in order to preserve a way of life now that is clearly unsustainable.

 

[jhbball]

"I'm a republican. Therefore, global warming is a hoax"