In 1974, they tried to lie to you about a coming ice age. They're at it again.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

• 7 articles predicting cooling
• 44 predicting warming
• 20 that were neutral

In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does, this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying back in the 1970s.

link

So, in other words, we know more today than we did 40 years ago?

Wowsie wow wow!!!

So... perhaps in 40 years scientists will look back on today and say "what a bunch of idiots, with their primitive computer models and theories of global warming"?

Whatever progress is made 40 years from now will not change the overall conclusion that human activity is having a profound effect on climate change.

[Danno 1,228]

This fear mongering worked then..... (carter was elected a year later and he congress implemented all types of changes).

The only fall out to this scam was it helped create a generation of sceptics which were indoctrinated in schools all across the country at the time (my school system included).

As the latest scam "global Warming" is crumbling, just imagine the fallout?

Case in point... Danno thinks the global warming theory is some sort of conspiracy. His mind is made up & don't confuse him with facts!

Danno wouldn't know science if it wore a red dress and sat on his lap.

You might very well be right Steve, but I (unlike you) can admit that this science is not my major in study.

The way you guys shoot-down even "scientists" who disagree, I doubt any background in science would be sufficient for you.... if I disagreed.

But rather than listen to what I.... or those who are believers in MMGW, lets see what these "believers do... shall we?

Who's house is this Steve?

awwe come on I'll give you a hint, he wrote this in one of his books about "greening" america.

<<<<Yes, “Americans” are popping up all over now — people who once lived low-energy lifestyles but by dint of oil wealth or hard work are now moving into U.S.-style apartments, cars and appliances.

Our planet cannot tolerate so many “Americans,” unless we take the lead and change what it means to be an American in energy terms. Attention Kmart shoppers: the world consumed about 66.6 million barrels a day of oil in 1990. We’re now consuming 83 million barrels a day.>>>>

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

This fear mongering worked then..... (carter was elected a year later and he congress implemented all types of changes).

The only fall out to this scam was it helped create a generation of sceptics which were indoctrinated in schools all across the country at the time (my school system included).

As the latest scam "global Warming" is crumbling, just imagine the fallout?

Case in point... Danno thinks the global warming theory is some sort of conspiracy. His mind is made up & don't confuse him with facts!

Danno wouldn't know science if it wore a red dress and sat on his lap.

You might very well be right Steve, but I (unlike you) can admit that this science is not my major in study.

The way you guys shoot-down even "scientists" who disagree, I doubt any background in science would be sufficient for you.... if I disagreed.

But rather than listen to what I.... or those who are believers in MMGW, lets see what these "believers do... shall we?

Who's house is this Steve?

awwe come on I'll give you a hint, he wrote this in one of his books about "greening" america.

<<<<Yes, “Americans” are popping up all over now — people who once lived low-energy lifestyles but by dint of oil wealth or hard work are now moving into U.S.-style apartments, cars and appliances.

Our planet cannot tolerate so many “Americans,” unless we take the lead and change what it means to be an American in energy terms. Attention Kmart shoppers: the world consumed about 66.6 million barrels a day of oil in 1990. We’re now consuming 83 million barrels a day.>>>>

lol danno.....that's actually a small house by some standards...

[HAL 9000 96]

Had Sutton included the part about 20,000 years, it wouldn't have seemed quite so alarmist and wouldn't have supported his thesis so well. So he just left it off.

Doesn't change the fact that 30-40 years ago there was a "scientific consensus" on global cooling,

just like there is now one on global warming.

I'm going to have to check on that global consensus. Somehow, I doubt it. But that isn't the point of your thread.

[HAL 9000 96]

Actually the data probably was pointing to the coming of a little ice age in the 70's. There were so many CFCs in the air that it was causing cooling. The trend broke because of environmental reform in the 70's/80's.

That's what they called it. "Little Ice Age." I wouldn't claim causation decreased CFCs but it would make sense indeed. Particularly, CFCs were famous for breaking down O3- thus increasing the amount of solar UV radiation hitting the planet's surface.

Nevertheless, there is a difference that idiots tend to miss between 'little ice age' and 'global cooling' in that the factors likely causing each are very different. But the idiocy blinds them from getting out of 1st grade science.

To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling canard – "How can we believe climate scientists about global warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was imminent?" – must seem like a never-ending game of Whack-a-mole. One of us (WMC) has devoted years to whacking down the mole (see here, here and here, for example), while the other of us (JF) sees the mole pop up anew in his in box every time he quotes contemporary scientific views regarding climate change in his newspaper stories.

The problem is that the argument has played out in competing anecdotes, without any comprehensive and rigorous picture of what was really going on in the scientific literature at the time. But if the argument is to have any relevance beyond talking points aimed at winning a debate, such a comprehensive understanding is needed. If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age, it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they thought this, and what relevance it might have to today's science-politics-policy discussions about climate change. If, on the other hand, scientists were not really predicting a coming ice age, then the argument needs to be retired.

The two of us, along with Tom Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center, undertook a literature review to try to move beyond the anecdotes and understand what scientists were really saying at the time regarding the various forces shaping climate on time human time scales. The results are currently in press at the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Doyle Rice has written a nice summary in USA Today, and an extended version based on a presentation made by Tom at the AMS meeting in January is on line.

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

• 7 articles predicting cooling
• 44 predicting warming
• 20 that were neutral

In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does, this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying back in the 1970s.

link

Some will ignore the substance in that review. You might want to highlight things in blinking neon.

[HAL 9000 96]

I should clarify that CFCs themselves may not be used...but other types of reflective material could be used.

Correct.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Some will ignore the substance in that review. You might want to highlight things in blinking neon.

A rubber mallet seems to be the most effective method.

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh Al Gore's house! The Gore Hard-On has entered the thread.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Regarding CFCs...yes it was probably due to other pollutants as well...all of which reflected light. The cooling gave way after the 70's effectively because the air was cleaner and light is better able to penetrate the atmosphere warming the planet and stopping that mid/late century cooling trend.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Sousuke

[HAL 9000 96]

Regarding CFCs...yes it was probably due to other pollutants as well...all of which reflected light. The cooling gave way after the 70's effectively because the air was cleaner and light is better able to penetrate the atmosphere warming the planet and stopping that mid/late century cooling trend.

CFCs cool the stratosphere and warm the troposphere.

The stratospheric effect if I remember is due to a direct effect of decreased O3 (ozone) and the tropospheric effect is due to the indirect effect of accumulating greenhouse gases that are exacerbated by the upper atmosphere CFC action and the bouncing of UV radiation on the surface.

We breathe the troposphere.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Regarding CFCs...yes it was probably due to other pollutants as well...all of which reflected light. The cooling gave way after the 70's effectively because the air was cleaner and light is better able to penetrate the atmosphere warming the planet and stopping that mid/late century cooling trend.

CFCs cool the stratosphere and warm the troposphere.

The stratospheric effect if I remember is due to a direct effect of decreased O3 (ozone) and the tropospheric effect is due to the indirect effect of accumulating greenhouse gases that are exacerbated by the upper atmosphere CFC action and the bouncing of UV radiation on the surface.

We breathe the troposphere.

So we'd adapt to breathing the stratosphere instead. What's the big deal?

[Danno 1,228]

This fear mongering worked then..... (carter was elected a year later and he congress implemented all types of changes).

The only fall out to this scam was it helped create a generation of sceptics which were indoctrinated in schools all across the country at the time (my school system included).

As the latest scam "global Warming" is crumbling, just imagine the fallout?

Case in point... Danno thinks the global warming theory is some sort of conspiracy. His mind is made up & don't confuse him with facts!

Danno wouldn't know science if it wore a red dress and sat on his lap.

You might very well be right Steve, but I (unlike you) can admit that this science is not my major in study.

The way you guys shoot-down even "scientists" who disagree, I doubt any background in science would be sufficient for you.... if I disagreed.

But rather than listen to what I.... or those who are believers in MMGW, lets see what these "believers do... shall we?

Who's house is this Steve?

awwe come on I'll give you a hint, he wrote this in one of his books about "greening" america.

<<<<Yes, “Americans” are popping up all over now — people who once lived low-energy lifestyles but by dint of oil wealth or hard work are now moving into U.S.-style apartments, cars and appliances.

Our planet cannot tolerate so many “Americans,” unless we take the lead and change what it means to be an American in energy terms. Attention Kmart shoppers: the world consumed about 66.6 million barrels a day of oil in 1990. We’re now consuming 83 million barrels a day.>>>>

lol danno.....that's actually a small house by some standards...

In the crowd he runs with... you are right.

[Danno 1,228]

Oh Al Gore's house! The Gore Hard-On has entered the thread.

At every provable point HAL is wrong.

SInce it's you HAL, I will give a hint

THOMAS F________M?

"Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America"

Edited December 8, 2009 by Danno

[HAL 9000 96]

Regarding CFCs...yes it was probably due to other pollutants as well...all of which reflected light. The cooling gave way after the 70's effectively because the air was cleaner and light is better able to penetrate the atmosphere warming the planet and stopping that mid/late century cooling trend.

CFCs cool the stratosphere and warm the troposphere.

The stratospheric effect if I remember is due to a direct effect of decreased O3 (ozone) and the tropospheric effect is due to the indirect effect of accumulating greenhouse gases that are exacerbated by the upper atmosphere CFC action and the bouncing of UV radiation on the surface.

We breathe the troposphere.

So we'd adapt to breathing the stratosphere instead. What's the big deal?

We have a few stratobreathers in this thread already.

Oh Al Gore's house! The Gore Hard-On has entered the thread.

At every provable point HAL is wrong.

SInce it's you HAL, I will give a hint

THOMAS F________M?

According to Dannologic, that is. Today's prescription for you is to go to bed a little earlier so tomorrow's predictable threads from you hide the racism and ignorance of scientific fact to their more sophisticated levels. That or just stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

[mawilson 2,133]

You might very well be right Steve, but I (unlike you) can admit that this science is not my major in study.

The way you guys shoot-down even "scientists" who disagree, I doubt any background in science would be sufficient for you.... if I disagreed.

That's exactly right. Anyone who disagrees with the "consensus" must be discredited

at all costs.

I have no reason to believe climate scientists are acting in bad faith, but as a non-religious

person, I just find it amusing to watch others blindly place their faith in other humans

and their theories.

All hail the consensus!