Global Cooling Notes From Reader “suyts”

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.
—Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.
—Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971) <———-Hey that’s the same reason we’re told we’re warming!

Nigel Calder (1975): The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.(writer for Science)

Certain signs, some of them visible to the layman as well as the scientist, indicate that we have been watching an ice age approach for some time without realizing what we are seeing… Scientists predict that it will cause great snows which the world has not seen since the last ice age thousands of years ago.
– Betty Friedan, “The coming Ice Age”, Harper’s Magazine, Sept, 1958(psycologist)

An increase by only a factor of 4 in the global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. 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. – S.I Rasool and S.H. Schneider
Science, v173, p138, 9/7/1971.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qvcNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_3sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5498,3270345&dq=allintitle:+ice+age
Dr. Earl W. Barrett of ESSA
“The possibility of a new man-made, life-destroying ice age was reported by Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA). It quoted Dr. Earl W. Barrett of ESSA Research Laboratories, Boulder, Colo., as saying the planet’s total environment “is being altered, perhaps disastrously and irreversibly, by human activities.”

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=h_0NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=I3wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3656,4469550&dq=allintitle:+ice+age
Paul Cato meteorologist
“If man keeps piping pollution into the atmosphere, he could bring on a new Ice Age that would cover states like Florida with 400 feet of water, television meteorologist Paul Cato told the High Noon Club here yesterday.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html
Marine Geologist Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami,
In what direction will the earth’s climate then turn? Emiliani refuses to speculate. But if man continues his “interference with climate through deforestation, urban development and pollution,” says Emiliani in typical scientific jargon, “We may soon be confronted with either a runaway glaciation or a runaway deglaciation, both of which would generate unacceptable environmental stresses.”<——–The money quote!

Most of the full studies are behind paywalls, so we’re stuck with abstracts.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138
S. I. Rasool 1 and S. H. Schneider
“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.”
Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, New York 10025

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/193/4252/447 <———GW article that acknowledges the dominant past concern of global cooling!
“The world’s inhabitants, including Scientists, live primarily in the Northern Hemisphere. It is quite natural to be concerned about events that occur close to home and neglect faraway events. Hence, it is not surprising that so little attention has been given to the Southern Hemisphere. Evidence for global cooling has been based,……….”

The difference between the global cooling alarm and the global warming alarmism? The method of delivery is more sophisticated. The ability to propagandize has been enhanced by psuedo-scientists. Well, my alarm is that they are learning from their failures of the past.

 

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Global Cooling Notes From Reader “suyts”

  1. ChrisD says:

    There is so much to say about this, but, since I’m “grossly overposting,” I’ll limit myself to just the most obvious flaw in your comments:

    Hey that’s the same reason we’re told we’re warming!

    No, it is not. They were talking then about aerosols. We are talking now about greenhouse gases. They have completely different effects. The only way you can say “it’s the same” is if you focus all of your attention on the single word “pollution” and completely ignore the fact that they are different types of pollution, and that different types of pollution can have opposite effects.

    • Glad you agree now that the global cooling scare was real.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        it was real, but it was nowhere near unanimous. Show me that 90% of the papers published regarding climate said that there was high likelihood of a rapid global decrease in temperature and I will totally grant your point. There WAS cooling. It was and still is attributed to aerosols, and there were scientists who clearly were saying that a rise in GHG would have an opposite effect.
        “Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.”

        But believers in a cult or religion will only look at information that supports their view.

    • suyts says:

      Chris, the quote was this,……….. “…….since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”

      You don’t see the parallels?

      • ChrisD says:

        You don’t see the parallels?

        Well, I see the parallels in that scientists recognized in both cases that things we do can have affect our climate. There’s no reason to think they weren’t both right, since both the causes and the effects are different.

        I do think it’s critical to note the frequent occurrence of conditional phrases such as, “If man keeps piping pollution into the atmosphere….” (and remember that he’s referring to aerosols, not CO2). That’s significant in this conversation. Was significant action taken on that front? Did it have any effect on atmospheric aerosols?

        I have plenty more that I could say on this, but it’s late, and I’m going to bed, and Steve doesn’t seem to like dissent much.

      • suyts says:

        Right, Chris, one country passes a law and the globes aerosols decrease.

        I think you are refusing to see the recurrent theme. I understand what you are saying, but I think history bears out differently. The dire doom and gloom predictions did not come to fruition. In the same vein, neither has the dire predictions of the warmists.

        The biggest problem, as I see it, for the climate alarmists of either vein or generation is that they tend to see climate as something that is suppose to be static. It isn’t. Nor do the see the earth’s self-correcting mechanisms in place. The water and hydro cycle being a great example.

        Further, they don’t understand how insignificant mankind is. We can all(mankind) fit in the state of Texas! And we’re worried about some trace gasses mankind is emitting? That’s like me worried about some potato chip some ants in my yard are trying to drag off.

        The outlandish part of the whole argument is this sudden race to get to renewable energy. First, sooner or later we’ll get there. We were headed that way before this lunacy, with or without this manufactured urgency. It simply needs to be done in a less dramatic fashion. In the interim, we have perfectly good solutions that are ignored. Why? Because the issue isn’t CO2 emissions or warming. Coal can now be used emitting only a fraction of what older power plants emit, but we don’t build them. We can’t. Nuclear power? Nope can’t do that either. We’ve built hydrogen motors and cars. Why doesn’t the CO2 fanatics tout them instead of some idiotic car on batteries? Because it isn’t about energy independence or CO2. Energy independence is another incredibly irksome mantra picked up by the warmists. WTF? Now their suddenly worried about that? Good, lets build cleaner emitting refineries right here in the U.S. Oh, I forgot, the environmentalists have blocked building any since the ’70s. Not that we can drill much here either. Alaskan pipeline, ever been there? I have, no the poley and grizes don’t care, neither do the moose. So why can’t we get to ANWR? Because it isn’t about energy independence. But the REE that China mines has made that abundantly clear. Class, raise you hand if you thought we were still permitted mine REE here in the states! The solar panels and wind turbines were thought up in a purposeful manner. German engineered, Chinese built. And that somehow helps us? BS, and this was all well known before we started this Quixotic adventure.

        It’s not about warming. It’s not about CO2. It’s not about energy independence. Its about self-loathing totalitarians seeking to control the earth’s populace by seizing control of our energy use. It was back when the meme was bringing in the next ice age and it is today when talking about CAGW or whatever nuanced phrase they want to run up the pole.

        Chris, sleep well.

      • ChrisD says:

        Right, Chris, one country passes a law and the globes aerosols decrease.

        You remember when I said that the reason for my “redundancy” is that you guys aren’t really listening, so I have to repeat things? Virtually this same quote has been directed at me over and over, and I’ve responded over and over, but it just comes back again as if I’d never said anything. Redundancy.

        Who said anything about “one country”? It wasn’t one country, it was most of the world’s industrial nations. Next Steve is going to say, “Russia! China!!” and then I will once again have to point to the word “most” in the previous sentence.

        You see?

        There is empirical data showing that aerosol emissions and levels, which had been steadily rising, stopped doing so and began to decline at a moment in time that is virtually coincident with the resumption of warming. I provided links to this data.

        But you don’t listen. I just get the exact same argument right back, as if I’d never said anything at all.

      • suyts says:

        Chris, believe it or not, some here don’t hang on every word you say, but then it wouldn’t be correct to say Russia and China, but rather more appropriate to say almost the entire continents of Asia, Africa and South America.

        An anecdote: I was talking to an alarmist acquaintance of mine and pointed out the lack of recent warming(this was 2009). She looked at me and stated, “See, we’re already having an impact!”

        Your post parallels that thinking. Maybe that lack of warming is reflected by the rest of the world emitting aerosols?

      • ChrisD says:

        Chris, believe it or not, some here don’t hang on every word you say

        I don’t expect that. I’m just trying to explain why some of my posts are, as you put it, “redundant.” If the same argument is repeated, then the rebuttal needs to be repeated. Otherwise, you can only argue a point one time, right? The same thing applies to any “skeptics” who post the same information more than once–which happens constantly–yet I’m the only one who gets called on it. There’s a word for this.

        it wouldn’t be correct to say Russia and China, but rather more appropriate to say almost the entire continents of Asia, Africa and South America.

        You are essentially arguing that pollution controls couldn’t have been effective because too many nations did nothing. But the simple fact is that after over a century of steady increases, atmospheric aerosols stopped increasing and began to decline in about 1975. What is your explanation for that if it wasn’t international pollution controls?

        An anecdote: I was talking to an alarmist acquaintance of mine and pointed out the lack of recent warming(this was 2009). She looked at me and stated, “See, we’re already having an impact!”

        She is mistaken.

        Your post parallels that thinking. Maybe that lack of warming is reflected by the rest of the world emitting aerosols?

        You’re consistently putting the idea that not everyone has pollution controls ahead of the empirical fact that aerosols stopped increasing 35 years ago. This doesn’t make any sense to me.

      • suyts says:

        Chris, ozone depletion has occurred as late as 1993. And yet the cooling had stopped well before agreements had been made. Or any action the EPA had initiated.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1970/to:1993/trend/plot/wti/from:1970/to:1993

        (Note, I used 1993 because that’s the last year mentioned about the ozone depletion, associated with ODS’ and VOC)

        http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/history.html

        “Numerous studies since then have confirmed both the Anartic hole, as well as an overall global decrease in Ozone. One major study calculates that the global ozone has decreased 2.5% from 1969 to 1986 and another 3% drop from 1986 to 1993(Science:260:1993), above and beyond what natural factors could account for. …..This protocol laid out a schedule for the phase-out of CFC’s and related halocarbons by the year 2030……In 1988, Sweeden was the first country to legislate the complete phase-out of CFC’s, with a scheduled phase-out of CFC’s in all new goods by 1994….”

        Chris, the time lines don’t make any sense. There’s not any correlation, much less any established cause and effect.

        For the uninitiated, CFC’s were the primary substances used in typical aerosols back then. Since then, they’ve been replaced, by …………….. you guessed it!! Condensed CO2!!!

      • ChrisD says:

        For the uninitiated, CFC’s were the primary substances used in typical aerosols back then.

        No, no, no. We’re not talking about what’s in hairspray and air conditioners. “Aerosols” in this context doesn’t refer to CFCs and such, it refers to airborne particulates:

        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/

        Chris, the time lines don’t make any sense

        They make perfect sense. You’re just talking about the wrong thing.

      • suyts says:

        Sorry Chris, I lost track of the cause de jour of which we were speaking, however, the same argument still holds true! Enforcement of regulations of particulate emissions(on any near global scale) didn’t go into effect until after the cooling had stopped.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:1980/trend

      • ChrisD says:

        I lost track of the cause de jour

        It’s not the cause du jour, it’s the same thing scientists have been talking about for 50 years and more. It is certainly what they were talking about in the quotes above.

        Enforcement of regulations of particulate emissions(on any near global scale) didn’t go into effect until after the cooling had stopped.”

        That is just plain false. Pollution controls began in the 50s, accelerated in the 60s, and really cranked in the early 70s. As I’ve mentioned several times, we have empirical evidence that aerosols peaked around 1975, which is just about coincident with the return of warming. Contrary to what you say, the timing is perfect.

        If the sudden reversal of aerosols around 1975 after more than a century of steady increases wasn’t the result of pollution controls, what is your explanation for it? I’ve already asked you this, and AFAIK you haven’t answered.

    • suyts says:

      Chris, for what its worth, I welcome your difference of opinion. Your redundancy can be tedious at times, but I understand. I defended my Cowboys all the way until last Sunday when I finally had to admit I was backing a loser. I’m wondering at what point will you finally decide………

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        suyts says:
        November 11, 2010 at 3:28 am

        I defended my Cowboys all the way until last Sunday

        How bout them Cowboys!

        I hope you’re off the Romo bandwagon too, if you ever were on it.

      • suyts says:

        lol, wait ’til next year! The ‘boys need a Cower or Gruden to whip them into players. Firing Phillips this late in the season is like shutting the barn door after the horses got out.

      • ChrisD says:

        Your redundancy can be tedious at times

        I would really prefer not to be “redundant,” but when you say something and get back responses that indicate that the responders weren’t actually listening, you either have to sigh and go watch American Idol, or say it again.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        suyts

        I don’t think Cower wants to coach yet. And I PRAY GOD he never coaches the Cowboys!!

      • suyts says:

        Yeh, I don’t think he’ll coach for a jack-ass like J. Jones. But, hope springs eternal!

    • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

      ChrisD says:
      November 11, 2010 at 2:18 am

      different types of pollution

      There’s your verbiage pollution.

      BTW, thank God those politicians in Washington saved us back in the 70’s. Remember those brilliant politicians of the 70’s like Carter, ah yes, the golden age of politics.

      • ChrisD says:

        So, aerosols and greenhouse gases aren’t different? They don’t have different effects? What are you saying?

      • suyts says:

        lol, Chris, I see what you mean about saying stuff again! Here’s the quote again.

        “…….since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”

        There is a particular “sameness” in the alleged causes of cooling and warming. It’s called ‘progress of humanity’.

        Or, and this is my favorite quote that seems very apropo for this discussion,

        “But if man continues his “interference with climate through deforestation, urban development and pollution,” says Emiliani in typical scientific jargon, “We may soon be confronted with either a runaway glaciation or a runaway deglaciation, both of which would generate unacceptable environmental stresses.”

        In other words, he doesn’t know what’s going to happen(colder and/or hotter), but he knows urban development(industrialization) is bad!

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        ChrisD says:
        November 11, 2010 at 4:16 am

        What are you saying?

        That Jimmy Carter was brilliant. Didn’t you catch that?

      • ChrisD says:

        There is a particular “sameness” in the alleged causes of cooling and warming. It’s called ‘progress of humanity’

        No, the alleged causes are different. That’s the point. Different things we do have different effects.

        he doesn’t know what’s going to happen

        What he’s saying is, “Greenhouse gases warm and aerosols cool, both are bad, and I don’t know right now, in 1971, which one is going to win.” That seems pretty reasonable to me.

        The Time writer’s “jargon” bit is just lame. He wants the guy to commit one way or the other when he doesn’t have the answer, and if he doesn’t it’s just “scientific jargon”? Or maybe he’s just referring to “glaciation” and “deglaciation”. I dunno. Either way, it’s a cheap shot.

      • suyts says:

        So, if the U.S. hadn’t passed those EPA edicts and laws regarding aerosols, the globe could have reached an equilibrium? If that’s the case, then we’ve had the solution to CAGW all along! All we have to do is put aerosols back in our hair spray!

        • The aerosol argument is a no-win argument for these guys. If the cooling was due to aerosols, then so was the subsequent warming. They are just rearranging deck chairs on the AGW Titanic.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Interesting watching Chris, who is trying to have a rational conversation with people about a rather simple topic.
        And Even Steve, who is obviously intelligent and well educated about these issues gives the religious answer. “The alarmists say cold when it suits them and hot when that does. There is no real science it is all a scam to scare us into doing what the liberal totalitarian elite want.”

        No Steve, the aerosol argument is a win-win in this case. There has been an increase in GHG since the 1900’s, Aerosol’s masked the effects of that from the 40 to the 70’s and the decrease in aerosols removed that factor. that’s all that this is about. Nothing to see here, move along. But you CAN’T because it means that EVERYTHING about ACC isn’t wrong and you can’t accept that

        Amazing that you question the logic of this. This particular kind of argument reminds me of how lysenkoists argued against genetics by claiming it was a capitalist invention. Never mind that it actually fit the reality.
        You should at least limit yourself to the few of your arguments that aren’t quite so ridiculous

  2. peter says:

    it gets colder, they blame us for it

    it gets warmer, they blame us for it

    • suyts says:

      Exactly! It is simply incomprehensible for some that we really aren’t that significant. If we were all to suddenly vanish from this earth tomorrow, in a few centuries, someone would have to do some real digging to even find a trace of human existence. In a few millennium, there would be almost no trace left.

      For others, they simply hate capitalism.

      For others still, they simply have a self-loathing in which the project upon the rest of humanity.

      The gig is up, the game is over until the next crisis arises over what mankind is doing to progress.

  3. lance says:

    Global cooling was real. When i worked for Env. Canada in the late 70’s early 80’s, that was the talk. My gosh we set the N. American record in Eureka that Feb ’79 (-47.9C) mean. Thankfully, we started to warm up a bit! Unfortunately, the graphs don’t shwo that cooling anymore, thanks Doc Hansen…and others.

    • suyts says:

      lol, don’t worry, as ’79 becomes more in the distant path, you’ll notice Doc H. will make it cooler again! You see, there’s this algorerythym……..

  4. suyts says:

    Steve, thanks, that’s quite an honor.

  5. neill says:

    ChrisD is a drive-by debater.

    He asks leading questions only to draw one further out for his trademark clinical ball-peen hammering.

    He doesn’t have the courage to present an argument, and then defend it. I suppose he fears he would get mauled.

    He’s right about that.

  6. Paul H says:

    Chris,

    Has it not occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the cooling upto the 70’s and the warming since are just part of a natural cycle ( along with the warming upto 1940) .

    • ChrisD says:

      What natural cycle, Paul? If you don’t say what’s causing it, it’s just hand-waving.

      • Mike Davis says:

        ChrisD:
        The same natural cycles that have been controlling the weather / climate since the globe has had weather / climate. The list of causes is long. Even your precious Latif admits there are natural long term weather variations.

      • ChrisD says:

        More handwaving. Everybody agrees that there are natural cycles. But just saying “cooling upto the 70′s and the warming since are just part of a natural cycle” is pure handwaving unless the natural cycles are identified.

        Mike: “I don’t feel so good, Doc. What’s wrong”
        Doc: “You’re sick, Mike. Pay the receptionist on the way out.”

        your precious Latif

        He’s not my precious anything. He’s just a scientist whose talk was misrepresented by the Mail and your precious Steve Goddard.

      • Mike Davis says:

        PDO AMO AO IOD ENSO AAO NAO SOI NAM MJO LOD ACI PHD THC SCMSS 11 year solar cycle

        Is that enough natural cycles.
        Of course these are only natural Multidecdal weather patterns as I did not look up the longer term such as the Glacial Interglacial or the 40K year cycle pattern that is obvious in historical records.
        I also did not include the 8 to 12 hundred year pattern that is displayed by the Minoan Warm period Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period along with the cold periods in between. There are other unnamed warm periods since the Holocene Optimum 5 thousand years ago or maybe even 8 thousand years ago but the resolution is not fine enough to see a lit of the variations that happened back then.
        See this site for more:

        http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/

        For a better understanding of climate Chris might want to read this:

        http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/grand-view-4-billion-years-climate-change

      • ChrisD says:

        Wow, you are a champion point-misser.

        It is not sufficient to point out that natural cycles exist. It’s not even sufficient to list some of them. Anyone who wants to say, “Don’t worry, it’s just part of a natural cycle” had better be prepared to demonstrate the specific cycles or cycles that explain a specific change in climate, or it’s just hand-waving. It’s a non-explanation explanation. It’s completely useless.

      • Mike Davis says:

        ChrisD:
        You are the one trying to claim that natural cycles do not account for the weather we have experienced during the late 20th century. Natural cycles accounted for weather patterns before that so it is up to you to show that weather patterns are some how out side of natural variations. I already told you that natural weather pattens complement to enhance, conflict to restrict or have no influence on each other those factors result in a variety of weather patterns. The overall result is long term climate which needs to be studied over periods longer than a century and probably better studied aver millennial periods. Less than that is regional weather.
        You show where natural weather is not what we are experiencing.
        First you would have to define natural weather patterns then find outlier that fit the CO2 drives weather pattern. That would be called the “Fingerprint” of the problem.
        The claim it is all due to natural weather variations has always been the null hypothesis which needs to be falsified.

  7. Gator says:

    Am I the only one who noticed this line… “If man keeps piping pollution into the atmosphere, he could bring on a new Ice Age that would cover states like Florida with 400 feet of water, television meteorologist Paul Cato told the High Noon Club here yesterday.”

    I’m still scratching my head over this “meteorolgist” statement. But then I recall Mann is a Professor of Meteorology, must be something in the syllabus.

    • suyts says:

      lol, yeh, I noticed it, but just chalked it up to more of the whacky disconnect displayed by climate alarmists.

    • Mike Davis says:

      It is just evidence of a warm promoters grip on reality.
      We all know that maximum glaciation will cause the sea levels to rise!!
      Right! Right!
      Maybe the ice on the equator will sink every thing at lower than 35 north because glaciation starts at the Equator!
      I am just trying to help the poor fool!!!
      This one almost sounds like ChrisD.

  8. Pingback: Consensus? We don’t need no stinking (global warming) consensus! - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register

  9. Justa Joe says:

    “hand waving”

    According to Chris if a natural phenomenon occurs, but we are unable to determine why it happenened then it must not really be a natural phenomenon… wow

    Since we don’t fully understand the natual variabilty of the “climate” then we must assume everyday would be perfectly mild without man’s industrial emissions. Any wild eyed theory can fill the bill as long as industrialization is the culprit. Chris’ basic philosophy seems to be that man’s machinations just have to be catastrophic for the “planet”. The only question is what form the catastropy will take never mind the fact that global cooling due to airborne particulates and global warming due to so-called GHG(s) seem to mitigate against each other.

    • ChrisD says:

      According to Chris if a natural phenomenon occurs, but we are unable to determine why it happenened then it must not really be a natural phenomenon… wow

      “Wow” is right. That is a total distortion of what I said.

      Let’s try again.

      Just saying “It’s natural” doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t explain anything,. It’s insufficient information. You have to be able to say what natural cycles are causing a trend. If you can’t, you’re just waving your hands at the question and not answering it.

      It doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it just means that you haven’t made your point, and you can’t demonstrate that it’s true.

      That is completely different from your little summary.

      • Mike Davis says:

        ChrisD:
        Natural climate came before a claim something else was driving weather. You tend to get things backwards. YOU NEED to find evidence in the real world that human causes are behind recent weather. Please itemize what you find.
        Our evidence is in the history books and geology books.

      • ChrisD says:

        You retain your crown as champion point-misser.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Mike,
        Chris is making the same argument I have made to you a few times, though he is nicer about it (of course he gets exasperated and I don’t, so we are even there).

        You are ascribing a religious belief in something called “natural cycles” they can explain ANYTHING you want them to. They are analogous to the argument against evolution. GOD created everything, so any explanation that says evolution did something can be countered by God doing it. Because evolution is not fully understood it is imperfect and therefore since natural cycles are perfect and can explain everything evolution HAS to be wrong, until it can prove itself to be as perfect an explanation as God.
        So WHICH natural cycles are responsible for the cooling trend in the 40-70’s and which for the warming now?
        climate scientists posited a correlation between increased CO2 and increased temps. They also posited a correlation between aerosols and decreased temps. BOTH fit the theory. There has been no twisting of ACC in order to fit in data that was part of the theory but no longer consistent.
        Lindzen is very clear about that. Why don’t I see him attacked here more often?

  10. peterhodges says:

    you retain your crown as champion obfuscator

  11. BarnesMoore says:

    One problem with the correlation between Co2 and warming that I have not seen mentioned here is that in the geologic history as shown in the ice cores, warming occurred on average 800 years ahead of the Co2 increases – so it seems that warming is more likely the cause of increased Co2. Also not mentioned is that Co2 makes up about .04% of the atmosphere – about 380 PPM. Of that .04%, about 97% is naturally occuring. And, physics shows that increased levels of C02 have an asymetrical impact on warming – that is, each PPM of Co2 has a decreasing affect. So, the alarmists would have us believe that man’s contribution to atmospheric Co2 (roughly .0012%) is causing runaway global warming and that to stop it, we all need to go back to living in caves and stop reproducing. Lastly, in the geologic history of this planet, we are near an all time low of atmospheric Co2. In earth’s history, Co2 levels have been as high as 7000 PPM, and typically were around 1500 to 2000 PPM. Why didn’t we have runaway global warming during those periods?

    • Mike Davis says:

      Barney:
      I have not brought up any of that because I thought it was understood. Geological history shows the relationship as well as biological history. If asked I would say the reason for the low concentration of CO2 is the cold conditions the globe is experiencing have restricted the biological activity which allows a higher concentration of CO2 to cycle through biosphere.
      The answer to your question is simple. Natural long term weather patterns act as a thermostat to control earth’s temperature, climate if you will as there are more things involved than just temperature. One of the things that accounts for and answers your question is cloud concentrations. You could call clouds the thermostat but that would only be calling an outward display of forces at work the actual cause. The Ocean atmosphere or biosphere which includes the land also contains all the components that control the energy received from the sun by degrees of restriction. Less restriction of incoming energy leads to warming and more restriction of incoming energy leads to cooling. That is only part of the equation because less restriction to out going energy when there is no incoming energy leads to cooling and more restriction when no energy is coming leads to warming. The factors act differently depending on concentrating of energy flowing in a specific direction. using averages destroys the understanding of the natural forces at work and there is no one cause for any result but a combination. It is like a pendulum trying to find equilibrium or balance. That can never be found in a dynamic system that is always changing. CO2 plays such a minor part it is best just to ignore it as a contributor as it is just along for the ride.
      History shows us that a combination of natural forces working in cooperation and also opposition create the weather we experience. To claim something has now taken control of the natural forces one needs to define the natural forces and show how the outsider is /has changed the patterns. If CO2,as claimed, is now contributing to weather more than before they need to show that what we are experiencing is outside of natural variations to be a problem.
      They can not separate CO2 effects from natural weather effects. There is no evidence that there is or as been an unnatural change in weather patterns as claimed.

      The promoters need to prove their claims because their claims are falsified by historical natural weather variations that continue now as they did in the past.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s