Snow means global warming is a myth!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Don't let facts get in the way of your talking points Waggy:

"The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

Scientific Studies published from 1965 to 1979 - only 10% predicted cooling.


and that changes it? in the 70's there were articles in major papers/magazines saying that it was a cooling trend.

i din't say they were right. just the fact it went from cooling to now warming. I never said that it wasn't happening.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Just let him get his LOL Democrats™ out now and again. Especially if he is able to do so without yelling, screaming, cursing and drooling everywhere.

This from the idiot who's only contribution to the forum has been "LOL REPUBLICANS." People like you have no self-awareness, it's quite sad really. I find that the most vocal Democrats often have no idea how they're almost identical to the biggest idiots on the Republican side.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,517
15,399
136
This from the idiot who's only contribution to the forum has been "LOL REPUBLICANS." People like you have no self-awareness, it's quite sad really. I find that the most vocal Democrats often have no idea how they're almost identical to the biggest idiots on the Republican side.

That pretty much sums up your life, doesn't it?


Republican links snow to climate change: IDIOT!

Democrat links hurricanes to climate change: That's just good science.

Democrats, LOL.



Priceless!
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Holy cow wow you never have read the scientific report on what they meant when the upper atmosphere was warming it then translates to cooler ground temps all around.

It does not mean someone is lying when we say in general it is global warming when everything is icing over! JEEBUS!! learn to read scientific reports!
The knowledge gap between the general public and advanced sciences is absolutely enormous.

If you tried to explain the theory behind flash memory, concerning how you get an electron to tunnel through an insulator, some people would say that you were just making it up. Or maybe go into how information is encoded in the transmissions from cellphones, and how the cellphone towers manage to tease out incredibly weak signals from thousands of phones at the same time. That's just what goes into consumer devices like that.

Or some of the things going on in advanced sciences labs: "That's just impossible. No one knows how to do that. Now I know for sure that you're making this stuff up."
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
Whoa, its snowing outside. I can see it falling outside of my window. Global Warming LOL!
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Ah, the old cut off your nose to spite your face approach. That'll show us.

It sure seemed to recently when Democrats got the heave ho. But keep acting like a bunch of five year old assholes. I'm sure that doesn't turn anybody off.

Another hundred threads in ATP&N, that'll swing the country to your way of thinking. What a bunch of impotent pricks you all are.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,042
30,329
136
It sure seemed to recently when Democrats got the heave ho. But keep acting like a bunch of five year old assholes. I'm sure that doesn't turn anybody off.

Another hundred threads in ATP&N, that'll swing the country to your way of thinking. What a bunch of impotent pricks you all are.
Haha, the heave ho that everyone knew was coming from a midterm. The heave ho that changed absolutely nothing because the GOP still can't pass any legislation and even if they did it would be vetoed.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,517
15,399
136
Wow. You guys are real winners. Keep up the good work, it's people like you that keep people voting Republican.

No, no, it's people like you, easily mislead, easily manipulated, ignoring facts with ease, and thinking with their gut, that are attracted to the shrinking political party that is the GOP.

It's why your posts are dumber and dumber and based more and more on emotion than fact, because you've got nothing but your own hot air to get behind.


It's why you get mad when someone simply quotes your own hypocrisy.

You aren't attracted to the left because the left isn't trying to attract idiots like you;)
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,160
1,634
126
Why is climate change a political issue?
When did it become political?
How can we get this seperated with politics?

politics has no place in science. it should be frowned upon with the harshest criticism.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
HBO played Idocracy last week, I'd never seen it to be honest.

Just going into work lately, or reading the news, it almost feels like it has all ready happened.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,896
7,920
136
Don't let facts get in the way of your talking points Waggy:

"The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

Scientific Studies published from 1965 to 1979 - only 10% predicted cooling.

An update on that subject, from the New York Times.

In 1961, there was unanimous consensus that the world was cooling.

Oh, and the global consensus at that time is consistent with the National Academy Of Sciences 1975 report over a decade later.
screenhunter_1137-may-12-16-36.jpg
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,517
15,399
136
An update on that subject, from the New York Times.

In 1961, there was unanimous consensus that the world was cooling.

Oh, and the global consensus at that time is consistent with the National Academy Of Sciences 1975 report over a decade later.

So what you are saying is; you don't trust new science or science that changes it's findings based on more studies? I don't anyone needs to tell you what's wrong with that logic but by all means, continue on about how you trust the science from more that 40 years ago.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
Science - by definition - is a process - and when new data/observations are made and/or calculated, the prevailing theories are adjusted.

People that mention how some scientists in the 60's and 70's thought we were heading for a cooling trend (mind you - this was not a majority at all), and use this as some sort of 'it's the same thing all over again' - have the mindset of 2nd graders arguing about recess kickball games.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,896
7,920
136
Science - by definition - is a process - and when new data/observations are made and/or calculated, the prevailing theories are adjusted.

People that mention how some scientists in the 60's and 70's thought we were heading for a cooling trend (mind you - this was not a majority at all), and use this as some sort of 'it's the same thing all over again' - have the mindset of 2nd graders arguing about recess kickball games.

Not a majority?
In 1961 it was a unanimous consensus.

As for the relevance, well first of all you guys are denying the 60s and 70s ever happened.
Second, the surface temperature record has been so thoroughly adjusted that a convincingly significant downward trend (after the rapid warming of the 30s and 40s) has been entirely erased from the record. The same record you expect us to put full faith and credit into down to 0.01C, hundredths of a degree, globally.

Given its ever increasing adjustments and divergence from satellite data, one must conclude that the surface station record is broken.
 

master_shake_

Diamond Member
May 22, 2012
6,425
291
121
i don't know what is going to happen first.

iran gets a nuclear weapon

global warming causes global warming

or Leonardo DiCaprio winning an academy award.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,069
14,338
146
An update on that subject, from the New York Times.

In 1961, there was unanimous consensus that the world was cooling.

Oh, and the global consensus at that time is consistent with the National Academy Of Sciences 1975 report over a decade later.

Not a majority?
In 1961 it was a unanimous consensus.

As for the relevance, well first of all you guys are denying the 60s and 70s ever happened.
Second, the surface temperature record has been so thoroughly adjusted that a convincingly significant downward trend (after the rapid warming of the 30s and 40s) has been entirely erased from the record. The same record you expect us to put full faith and credit into down to 0.01C, hundredths of a degree, globally.

Given its ever increasing adjustments and divergence from satellite data, one must conclude that the surface station record is broken.
Scientists meanwhile began using computers to develop more sophisticated versions of Arrhenius's calculations. In 1967, taking advantage of the ability of digital computers to numerically integrate absorption curves, Syukuro Manabe and Richard Wetherald made the first detailed calculation of the greenhouse effect incorporating convection (the "Manabe-Wetherald one-dimensional radiative-convective model").[22][23] They found that, in the absence of unknown feedbacks such as changes in clouds, a doubling of carbon dioxide from the current level would result in approximately 2 °C increase in global temperature.

By the 1960s, aerosol pollution ("smog") had become a serious local problem in many cities, and some scientists began to consider whether the cooling effect of particulate pollution could affect global temperatures. Scientists were unsure whether the cooling effect of particulate pollution or warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions would predominate, but regardless, began to suspect that human emissions could be disruptive to climate in the 21st century if not sooner. In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote, "the greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."[24]....


....In the early 1970s, evidence that aerosols were increasing world-wide encouraged Reid Bryson and some others to warn of the possibility of severe cooling. Meanwhile the new evidence that the timing of ice ages was set by predictable orbital cycles suggested that the climate would gradually cool, over thousands of years. For the century ahead, however, a survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 found 7 articles predicting cooling and 44 predicting warming (many other articles on climate made no prediction); the warming articles were cited much more often in subsequent scientific literature.[26] Several scientific panels from this time period concluded that more research was needed to determine whether warming or cooling was likely, indicating that the trend in the scientific literature had not yet become a consensus.[27][28][29]

More here
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1


So right there your claim of consensus towards cooling in the 60's is obviously bullshit.

And let's drop the bullshit accuracy argument as well. Your basically saying if I took 2 measurements of 3 people's ages in years 4 months apart:

14, 15, 16 for an average age of 15 years

4 months later

15, 15, 16 for an average age of 15 1/3

That it would be wrong because I couldn't possibly measure an increase in 1/3 of year when my measurements are only in year increments.

You aren't arguing that right?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,896
7,920
136
More here
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

So right there your claim of consensus towards cooling in the 60's is obviously bullshit.

My claim?
It's straight from the New York Times reporting on a international scientific meeting in 1961. Which matches the temperature data from that time period.

And let's drop the bullshit accuracy argument as well.
You aren't arguing that right?
Re: Surface Stations
1: Signal to noise ratio is extraordinarily bad in the surface record. Example, UHI is easily 10 degrees(f) in Pittsburgh and every other major city.
2: Raw data is infilled at an ever increasing rate.
3: Infilled data is warmer than raw data, because it replaces rural data with urban data, like Pittsburgh.

The infilling adjustments correlate nicely with the surface station records diverging from the two satellite records.