Salon says that the storm this week was as bad as the one in 1975, and that proves “global warming”
Problem is, in 1975, the weather was blamed on “global cooling”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
Salon : Global Warming Equals Global Cooling
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
The 1975 weather wasn’t “blamed on ‘global cooling'”. Those mass media articles simply noted that the weather had been unusually cool for a couple of years.
There’s was almost no support in the scientific community for any sort of significant near-term global cooling. You know that this is true.
You also know that even those mass media articles contained no predictions of continued cooling.
Why do you continue to beat this dead horse? What is the point?
You know Chris, you make this too easy….
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html
Why not remain silent and allow everyone to think you’re an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt?
The only teensy problem with this, Layne, is that somebody bothered to actually go back and review the scientific literature–which is all that really matters–from that period. What did they find? They found what I said: Essentially no support for global cooling.
Over the 15 years from 1965-1979, exactly seven papers predicted cooling. That’s about one paper every other year. But wait, there’s more! Some of them were about long-term Milankovitch-style cooling, so those weren’t predicting near term cooling, either. Others were talking about the effects of aerosol pollution, i.e., “If we don’t do something about this aerosol pollution (which we did), it’s probably going to cool.” So those were accurate, too.
Net-net, there were essentially no research papers over that entire 15-year period that predicted any significant near-term cooling.
On the other hand, nearly 50 predicted near-term warming.
Now, about the NSB report: Clearly you did not read it, you just relied on the impartial folks at Forbes to interpret it for you. Because if you had, you would have discovered that its conclusion is not at all what Forbes implied. What it actually said was that aerosol pollution was probably overwhelming the greenhouse effect and causing cooling: “By the middle of this century, the cooling effect of the dust particles more than compensated for the warming effect of the carbon dioxide, and world temperature bgean to fall.”
The moral of the story: Do not get your science from Forbes.
Chris. The storm was the same as 1975. Before Tamino’s period of modern warming. In other words – nothing has changed and blaming it on global warming is stupid. Get it?
Claiming that the Salon article says the storm “proves global warming” is stupid, since it doesn’t.
Claiming that some 70s media crap on cooling is in any way similar to the current scientific consensus on warming is stupid.
Get it?
Apparently NCAR published the graph showing 30 years of rapid cooling because they thought it was warming. Good thinking Chris.
Sure, Newsweek and everyone else just made it up, and amazingly no climatologists happened to read any of these articles during that decade and straighten them out.
Do you think the government is suppressing UFO information too?
Please post links to the research papers that were predicting near-term global cooling. Should be easy.
Thank you.
No, really. The whole thing was a big lie fabricated by Time, Newsweek, John Holdren, The CIA, US News, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, LA Times and all the while the climate science community was gagged and not permitted to rebut.
No, really. The whole thing was a big lie fabricated by …
Right. How are you coming along with those links I asked for?
Yes massa . You waanna change the subject massaa? I do whatever you say massaaa. I am you slave massa..
stevengoddard says:
Do you think the government is suppressing UFO information too?
—–
I’m sure he does. No doubt he also beleives that Big foot is real and the moon landings fake.
I’m sure he does. No doubt he also beleives that Big foot is real and the moon landings fake.
What a stupid comment. I’m the one who believes what the actual scientists say. You’re the one who doesn’t.
Actual scientists?
Yes, actual scientists. You know, the ones who do actual research and write actual peer-reviewed papers. They aren’t the people who believe in Bigfoot and faked moon landings.
The estimable Mr. Endicott, in asserting that I believe in these things, appears to have missed this post of mine on this very page.
I was simply pointing out the irony and, frankly, the rank stupidity of asserting that I believe in Bigfoot when he is the one who rejects what scientists say.
You do realize that you are adding absolutely nothing useful to the discussion?
ChrisD says:
The estimable Mr. Endicott, in asserting that I believe in these things, appears to have missed this post of mine on this very page.
————-
Once again the thin-skinned Coppenhagen Chris shows us that Humor is something that he clearly does not understand. The whole point of my sarcastic jab was that *YOU* are the one who seems to believe conspiracy and fairy stories based on your apparent belief (as pointed out by Steve) that “Newsweek and everyone else just made it up, and amazingly no climatologists happened to read any of these articles during that decade and straighten them out. “
You do realize that you are adding absolutely nothing useful to the discussion?
OK, so the post about how I must believe in Bigfoot was useful, but my response that I don’t was not.
I’m just trying to understand the ground rules.
based on your apparent belief (as pointed out by Steve) that “Newsweek and everyone else just made it up, and amazingly no climatologists happened to read any of these articles during that decade and straighten them out.”
It’s not my “apparent belief.” It’s not my belief at all. Steve didn’t “point it out”, he made it up.
And there’s your problem in a nutshell. You don’t read, or you read but don’t think and comprehend.
I have said repeatedly that it was cooling in the 70s, and that’s what the Time and Newsweek articles were about. They were about observed conditions. They were not about predicted conditions. They contained some speculation about what would happen if this continued, but they did not not contain a prediction of a coming ice age from any scientist, no matter how many times you guys try to say or imply that they do.
Virtually the only academic discussion of cooling was aerosol-related. That discussion was, and is, valid and apparently correct. I don’t know of anyone serious who disputes that atmospheric aerosols have a cooling effect.
There, now, was that so hard?
So if you agree that it was cooling in the 1970s, then you agree with the article and you are arguing for no reason.
Really, when you tell someone what they know, you automatically lose the argument. You might consider refraining from using those kinds of lines. Also “coming ice age” leads me to think continued.
Yeah, except that he does know. He’s not that stupid.
“Coming ice age” was a mass media headline. I asked him for scientific support for global cooling, not media articles.
Seriously, Obama’s science advisor made the whole thing up. It never happened. The scientists were gagged and not allowed to defend the truth. It was a nightmare.
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873
You do understand that Holdren was talking about the potential effects of unrestricted aerosol pollution–right? You have some evidence that this was wrong, I assume.
And then there’s that first sentence: “It seems, however, that a competing effect has dominated the situation since 1940.” Can you guess what other effect he was talking about?
Seriously, how about the links to all those research papers predicting near-term cooling?
So the 2010 storm is the same as the 1975 storm because of all the warming which has occurred since 1975. Makes perfect sense.
“Why do you continue to beat this dead horse? What is the point?”
Same as always. Steve wants to obscure the truth and cause confusion about the fact.
It the old “manufactured uncertainty” used by cigarette companies about cancer claims.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/where-theres-smoke-the-climate-change-denial-lobby/
That’s all Steve is doing here. No real science, just try to confuse the readers, then repeat it over and over and over again.
I get it now. The 2010 storm is the same as the 1975 storm because of all the warming which has occurred since 1975.
Keep talking Brendon. You are giving me lots of insight into the dysfunctional thinking behind the religion.
Quoting from Greenfyre does not help your case Brendon. He still has the discredited hockey stick graph on his about page and that alone should be a warning about the validity of his claims.
Also, he is a disciple of Al Gore and has attended Gore’s “climate” camp. I relation to that article you posted, have a read of this.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/al-gores-tobacco-hypocrisy.html
Stephen Schneider strongly believed that there was global cooling going on.
Here is the opening statement from his paper he published in SCIENCE in 1971.
“Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Schneider S. & Rasool S.
“ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.
Abstract. Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Becuase of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. 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 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.
The rate at which human activities may be inadvertently modifying the climate of Earth has become a problem of serious concern 1 . In the last few decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to have increased by 7 percent 2 . During the same period, the aerosol content of the lower atmosphere may have been augmented by as much as 100 percent 3 .
How have these changes in the composition of the atmosphere affected the climate of the globe? More importantly, is it possible that a continued increase in the CO2 and dust content of the atmosphere at the present rate will produce such large-scale effects on the global temperature that the process may run away, with the planet Earth eventually becoming as hot as Venus (700 deg. K.) or as cold as Mars (230 deg. K.)?
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!”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You’re missing the point. This paper says that aerosols cause cooling. That was, and is, correct. The paper also says that increased CO2 will cause warming. That also was, and is, correct.
The paper tries to calculate the effects of increasing CO2 and increasing aerosols. It is not a prediction of global cooling.
One more thing:
Stephen Schneider strongly believed that there was global cooling going on.
There was global cooling going on. Nobody disputes this. That’s not the issue. The issue is, were scientists in the 70s predicting that this was going to continue? The answer is: No, they were not.
When will you learn Steve, stop taking your climate advice from newpapers, artists or weathermen. 😉
Yeah, Steve. What the hell does a weatherman know about the climate?
If you want to know about climate, you need a computer programmer (Harry, say) and really crappy data that you spend weeks and weeks on!
What the hell does a weatherman know about the climate?
Not that much, actually, and most weathermen will happily tell you that. Weather and climate are two very different fields of study.
And Harry the programmer didn’t design the models. He coded what he was asked to code by climate scientists.
Has anyone advised Chis’ Village where he/she/it is hanging out.
Wow! Layne I had not read that account before, I had just read other accounts and lived through the 70s.
You might want to read the actual documents rather than simply swallowing what a financial publication instructs you to think. The Forbes characterization of the NSB report is completely and utterly bogus, as you would know if you’d actually bothered to look at it.
Was it warming or cooling from 1940-1975? Do you think NCAR fabricated the graph?
Oh, come on. Nobody disputes that there was a cooling trend. And that has nothing to do with whether or not Forbes’s characterization of the NSB report was correct.
Brendon:
The lack of science is obvious in those who are still promoting some fairy tale about Global warming or human caused climate change.
Most readers are not being confused by your delusional claims.
So, let’s see. I got my information on the NSB report from the NSB report. You guys are getting your information on the NSB from a Forbes blog post. Yet we’re the ones with the “lack of science.”
The irony is pretty rich, really.
Brendon and ChrisD, please phone home. Amber Alerts have been put out for you. Your village says the idiot(s) have been missing for sometime.
Yet another factless ad hom. These seem to be very popular on this blog.
Moderators who allow this kind of stuff do get a reputation, Steve. Not a good one.
Still waiting for your explanation of how an equivalent storm to 1975 proves global warming. You have been working really hard to drag the conversation off topic, and it annoys people.
Still waiting for you to show where anyone said that either storm proves global warming. Salon sure didn’t.
And not a word of what I’ve posted here is off topic. Your post is about the “global cooling” of the 70s and the Salon article. Everything I’ve posted is directly on those two points. You appear to believe that anything you don’t agree with is off-topic.
If you don’t do something about your fans calling anyone who disagrees with them stupid twats, virgin geeks, village idiots, and the like, you are going to get a reputation that you will not like. There are good blogs and there are trash blogs. Which kind do you want?
That was the whole point of the article.
It started with “Topic : Global Warming” and ended with “(Minnesota Republicans like gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer and House incumbent Michele Bachmann are leading global warming deniers.)”
How about quoting the bit where it says that the storm proves global warming. Thanks.
I have to tell you that you have a habit of attributing to people things that they didn’t actually say.
You have got to be kidding. That was the entire point of the article.
No, it wasn’t. There isn’t even a hint that this storm “proves global warming.”
The very most you can get out of the post is that more big storms can be expected, so this one didn’t astonish anyone.
So, no, I’m not kidding. Show me where it says that one storm proves global warming. Show where it even implies that one storm “proves global warming.”
LOL. “Topic Global Warming”: Every link in the article is a global warming link. It ends with a discussion of “deniers.”
You would have to be completely daft to not understand what the author is getting at.
No, you have to be completely disingenuous to read that and then say in public, “Look, it says here that this storm is proof of global warming.”
That’s just not what it says, and it’s not what it implies, no matter how many times you repeat your assertion. All anyone reasonable can get from this is that more big storms are a likely consequence of global warming, and this was a big storm, so it wasn’t particulary surprising. Period. That is a long, long, long way from “This storm proves global warming.”
You are in deep, deep denial of the obvious.
Chris, why when an alarmist says something ridiculous you have no problem defending them by saying “You know perfectly well what he meant” but you refuse to allow anyone to form an opinion about the meaning of an article or paper? I mean you could at least argue the merits of their opinion, but all you want to do is look for exact word matches and if they are not there just keep repeating that over and over again. Pretty tiring. I hope you get paid well for your distraction campaign.
When an article discusses an extreme weather event then asks the question – who could have predicted it? with the answer being a link to an article referencing IPCC 2007 – “http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1441&tstamp=
that states: “General Circulation Models (GCMs) like the ones used in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report do a very good job simulating how winter storms behave in the current climate, and we can run simulations of the atmosphere with extra greenhouse gases to see how winter storms will behave in the future. ”
and
“So, the modeling studies predict a future with fewer total winter storms, but a greater number of intense storms.”
It is not hard to understand how someone would imply that the Salon article inferred that the AGW hypothesis was being demonstrated by the extreme storm. And anyone who won’t even discuss that someone could come to that opinion has an ulterior motive.
you want to do is look for exact word matches
I’m not looking for an exact word match. I’m pointing out that the two statements (“GW = more big storms”, “This storm proves GW”) are barely in the same universe. I’m pointing out that the owner of this blog casually and routines sticks words in peoples’ mouths. You people are simply too blinded by your loyalty to your infallible hero to see it.
if they are not there just keep repeating that over and over again
Because nobody here is big enough to even acknowledge the patently obvious fact that those two statements are different. I keep hoping.
I hope you get paid well for your distraction campaign
I hope you get paid well for your disinformation campaign.
Do you have an opinion as to why the article asks the question of who could have predicted it, then provides an answer in terms of IPCC2007 GCM predictions regarding GHGs if it was not to infer the storm was somehow an indication of AGW?
Hint – Repeating that the article does not say that A = B is a non-responsive answer.
Still no answer? I guess when I took away your pat answer, you had nothing to say.
ChrisD says:
“I hope you get paid well for your disinformation campaign.”
What have I posted that is disinformation?
All I have done is ask you questions to get you to clarify your position beyond the A does not = B pat answer, which I characterize as a distraction.
What have I posted that is disinformation?
My point was that it’s cheap and easy to simply accuse someone you disagree with of being paid to disagree with you. Anyone can do it. You can accuse me of being paid, but I can just as easily accuse you of being paid. It’s completely meaningless, see? It’s just a cheap shot.
Do you have an opinion as to why the article asks the question of who could have predicted it, then provides an answer in terms of IPCC2007 GCM predictions regarding GHGs if it was not to infer the storm was somehow an indication of AGW?
I’ve already answered this same question, posed in various slightly different forms, about a hundred times. I saw no reason to do it again. That might be considered spamming. I certainly don’t want to be accused of being a spammer.
Well, I did not accuse you of getting paid to disagree with me, but took a shot at you for constantly making distractions. I agree that it was a shot, but not a cheap one because I think your actions have been a distraction. Your shot was that I was spreading disinformation was a cheap shot because, as you seem to be admitting, was not accurate.
As to you answering my request for your opinion on why the article spoke of global warming and predictions of storms from increasing GHGs if the intent of the article was to simply discuss a storm still goes unanswered. You say you answered it several times but I do not see a response.
I will try once again. It is my opinion that the article was written the way it was to associate the strorm with increased GHGs, as predicted and routinely stated by AGW supporters. This is what some would characterize as yellow journalism.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
If you continue to stick to your statements that the article does not infer cause and effect, then you should agree with me that it is yellow journalism.
What is your opinion?
MikeTheDenier writes with his usual sharp wit,
“Brendon and ChrisD, please phone home. Amber Alerts have been put out for you. Your village says the idiot(s) have been missing for sometime.”
I don’t know where they get the patience for what they do, being voices of reason on a site that hates science. But if Brendon and ChrisD (and Robert and a very few others) leave, this sad blog becomes nothing more than an echo chamber of ignorance.
I kind of think the hit count will drop too, maybe that’s why “steve” likes to bait them.
In less than eight weeks this blog has passed Real Climate.
Steve isn’t “baiting” anyone. He post good stuff that blows the entire gorebal warming, climate disruption nonsense apart. It’s the fools like Brendon, ChrisD and Gneiss who can’t stand FACTS.
Pro wrestling draws more fans than chess matches, too.
You mean like climate scientists writing e-mails to each other about beating up skeptics?
<yawn>
You are spamming again.
You are spamming again.
Get a dictionary. Learn what spamming actually is.
ChrisD says:
Get a dictionary. Learn what spamming actually is.
——————–
There are many definition of spam to be found, some of the few that I’ve come across that fit your “” post:
Forum spam is the creating of messages that are advertisements, abusive, or otherwise unwanted on Internet forums.
Electronic junk mail or junk newsgroup postings.
a disruptive message posted on a computer network or sent as e-mail.
and that was after just a quick search of definitions.
that fit your “” post:
should have had the YAWN in brackets between the quotes but I’m guessing the brackets were interpreted as an HTML tag instead.
I don’t see the definition that reads “Posting comments that present a point of view in opposition to a blog’s majority opinion.”
The only one that fits is the one about posting “unwanted” messages. Steve and his groupies don’t want to hear any opposing voices, which apparently is what constitutes spam around here.
It’s hard to imagine anything more boring than a blog filled with nothing but “Yay Steve!” messages, but I guess that’s what you want.
ChrisD says:
I don’t see the definition that reads “Posting comments that present a point of view in opposition to a blog’s majority opinion.”
—————————-
Where in your “yawn” post is there any “comments that present a point of view in opposition” anything? Really if you think a one word in bracket post is expressing a view point in opposition to anything other than good manners, you’re crazy.
However your “yawn” post was abusive and unwanted. It was junk and it was disruptive (I highlighted those words and phrases for a reason, you know) please explain how you think it was none of those things.
However your “yawn” post was abusive and unwanted. It was junk and it was disruptive (I highlighted those words and phrases for a reason, you know) please explain how you think it was none of those things.
It was a sarcastic response to a very silly post. I was under the impression that you guys liked sarcasm, since I’ve repeatedly seen untrue/misleading things that Steve has said excused on the grounds that they were “sarcastic,” and some people just don’t got no sensayuma.
Do you have anything intelligent to say?
ChrisD says:
It was a sarcastic response to a very silly post.
————-
Really? That’s amazing, since the post is was in response to was atleast making a valid point about climate scientists in repsonse to a non-sequiter about pro wrestling. I suggest you forget trying to do sarcasm, you clearly don’t understand it and as a result your attempts at it (taking you at your word that “yawn” was an attempt at sarcasm) fail big time.
Gneiss says:
I don’t know where they get the patience for what they do
——–
They’re well paid by the team? /joke
Gneiss says:
But if Brendon and ChrisD (and Robert and a very few others) leave,
———–
noone wants them to leave, only for them to stop posting the same thick-headed nonsense all the time (the worthless “they didn’t use that exact phrase so you’re lying” nonense that ChrisD constantly does is just one example – and yes Chris that is *NOT* an exact quote, it’s called a paraphrase, look it up)
That article in Forbes took all of 30 seconds to locate. I have no doubt there is far more literature about warming than existed regarding cooling in the 70’s. There is VASTLY more money being shoveled into the warming fantasy factory. It’s a direct relationship. But NONE of it means ANYTHING when the temperature record is fraudulent.
And none of it means anything if natural variability produced higher temperatures in the past….. and there is every indication temps were indeed higher many times.
Only the intellectually disfunctional fail to understand why: If temp averages were higher before the industrial revolution, and we cannot explain exactly why (which we cannot), then the current models have no possible cognizance of why, and do not account for these parameters (which they don’t).
The current models then failed to predict forward a single decade, making very clear that they do not model all forcings/feedbacks properly because they are UNAWARE of what those are or how they behave in reality.
This leads to a simple revelation that apparently escapes those dragging up the rear of intellectual capacity: If the models did not predict cooler temperatures in the last decade they cannot explain the cause of warming in the 80s/90’s.
We have no legitimate model. Period.
Because we do not know ALL parameters that effect Global Temperatures, we really know nothing. Any single omitted parameter could (and has) blown our models out of the water. This is but ONE of perhaps 15 GAPING HOLES in the warming theory.
I am amused by the ignorant denials written by two people in the thread.
Stephen Schneider,James Hansen,Reid Bryson,Henry Stommel.John Imbrie,Fred Hoyle,Fred Singer,Nigel Calder and many more believed that it was a cooling world in the 1970’s.ALL of them are scientists.
I read the book written by Lowell Ponte,The Cooling World.I read it while I was in high school in 1979 right after it was published.In it contains a lot of science research probing the concerns of a cooling trend that had been going on for several decades.
Stephen Schneider wrote a nice statement on the back cover of that book.Where he claims that the climatic cooling from 1940 to the 1970s was but the precursor to the main event – the coming Ice Age.
Stephen also wrote a book titled The Genesis Strategy.In it he warns of the coming glaciation.
There is more too.But some people are not going to let reality bite them in the ass.
many more believed that it was a cooling world in the 1970′s.
Please, please, please try to follow this:
It WAS cooling in the 1970s. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
Ye gods.
They wrote science articles,books and yes even a few science papers on it.They believed that the cooling trend might be of concern and that is what they were writing about at the time.
Reid Bryson,Stephen Schneider and others actually considered the possibility that the then cooling trend was leading into a new ice age.
I read a lot of such commentary made by these scientists back in the mid to late 1970’s.I even cut a few classes in high school to read them in the library.
That is the part you resist.
ChrisD:
“How about quoting the bit where it says that the storm proves global warming. Thanks.
I have to tell you that you have a habit of attributing to people things that they didn’t actually say.”
ChrisD who obviously did not read much in the Salon article,missed this part:
“What the IPCC models say
The Lambert and Fyfe (2006) study, titled, “Changes in winter cyclone frequencies and strengths simulated in enhanced greenhouse warming experiments: results from the models participating in the IPCC diagnostic exercise”, looked at thirteen models used to formulate the 2007 IPCC Climate Change report. Of these models, eleven simulated an increase in the number and intensity of the most intense cyclones (<970 mb pressure) in the climate expected by 2100. Two of the models did not, so it is fair to say that there is some uncertainty in these results. Nevertheless, the model results are compelling enough that the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), a scientific advisory board created by the President and Congress, concluded this in their 2009 U.S. Climate Impacts Report: "Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent". The USGRP concluded that an increase of between four and twelve intense wintertime extratropical storms per year could be expected over the Northern Hemisphere by 2100, depending upon the amount of greenhouse gases put into the air (Figure 3). If we assume that the current climate is producing the same number of intense winter storms as it did over the period 1961-2000–about 53–this represents an increase of between 8% and 23% in intense wintertime extratropical storms."
They are making it clear they blame Global Warming for the increase.
They are making it clear they blame Global Warming for the increase.
Blaming global warming for an increase in storms is absolutely, positively not the same thing as saying that a big storm proves global warming.
Is this really that hard to comprehend?
You missed this part ChrisD:
““Changes in winter cyclone frequencies and strengths simulated in enhanced greenhouse warming experiments: results from the models participating in the IPCC diagnostic exercise””
It goes on to state:
“looked at thirteen models used to formulate the 2007 IPCC Climate Change report. Of these models, eleven simulated an increase in the number and intensity of the most intense cyclones (<970 mb pressure) in the climate expected by 2100."
Where are your glasses?
Here from my forum is this Media presentation.It is a 3 part series originally aired in 1978.The television was called IN SEARCH OF,narrated by Leonard Nimoy.
The Coming Ice Age.
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-224.html
Oh, God.
Spock on a show that “investigated” ancient alien astronauts, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, psychic detectives, Atlantis, ghosts, the abominable snowman, the effect of human thought on plant growth, faith healing, the Bermuda Triangle?
And this is supposed to mean something? You are putting this out as actual evidence that scientists were predicting a coming ice age?
You simply cannot be serious.
You seem to want to talk about anything other than the topic of the article.
The storm was similar to the one in 1975. It has nothing to do with global warming. People claiming it does are not very bright. Why do you have trouble grasping such a simple concept?
This is all I wrote about the videos you never viewed:
“Here from my forum is this Media presentation.It is a 3 part series originally aired in 1978.The television was called IN SEARCH OF,narrated by Leonard Nimoy.
The Coming Ice Age.”
Nothing about scientists here.
Again where are your glasses?
I responded to a comment. If it’s off topic, talk to sunsettommy. Otherwise what you’re saying is that it’s OK for him to post the comment but not for me to respond.
Every comment of mine has related to issues raised by your post, and every one of them except for the very first one has been a direct response to another comment.
Once again you appear to be basing your on/off topic decisions mainly based on whether or not the poster is a fan.
You have completely failed to address the point of this article. The premise behind the Salon story was fatally flawed, by their own argument.
Nope. You attempted to give the article a point that it doesn’t have. You blandly state that it claims that the storm proves global warming. It doesn’t. That’s the point. You’re claiming that it says something it doesn’t say. To put it more bluntly, you’re making stuff up.
More extreme, unprecedented weather? Who could have predicted it? Listen to the lament of Minnesota meteorologist Paul Douglas, interviewed by Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson. (Minnesota Republicans like gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer and House incumbent Michele Bachmann are leading global warming deniers.)
Man oh man. ChrisD, please say one more time that they are saying the storm isn’t proof of global warming so that readers can see even more clearly how global warming is purely political propaganda.
It’s like Baghdad Bob saying, “The Americans are not here. We are pushing them back. We are cleaning them out.”
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
It’s like Baghdad Bob saying, “The Americans are not here. We are pushing them back. We are cleaning them out.”
——————–
Heh, I Perhaps Coopenhegen Chris should be ChrisD ‘s new nickname 🙂
What is bland ChrisD is your unimpressive attempt.
I think some here are using the notion that – When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, just argue.
“The storm was similar to the one in 1975. It has nothing to do with global warming. People claiming it does are not very bright. Why do you have trouble grasping such a simple concept?”
It reeks of a significant weather event.
He he…
Hurricane Camille was during the global cooling time.Hurricane Andrew was during Global Warming.
Who cares.If it happens it happens!
Though we have been told over and over by a few people that scientists were not part of the coming ice age scare of the 70’s, and that it was only a product of an alarmists media, peer reviewed works from the scientific literature of the time show it indeed was:
6:19 video
Do you not understand that this doesn’t contradict a single word of what I’ve said? All of the stuff about cooling in the scientific papers in your video was about aerosols. They all said, “Aerosols cause cooling, and a lot of aerosols will cause a lot of cooling.” That was and is correct, and it was NOT a prediction that a new ice age was upon us.
Your apparent idea that these papers said “An ice age is coming,” and that they were wrong, is completely off the rails. They didn’t predict that, and they weren’t wrong. They were right. They were examinations of the effect of aerosols on climate, and the conclusions they came to were correct.
So in 1945 we suddenly started dumping huge amounts of aerosols and in 1975 we suddenly quit?
Clean air acts were passed all over the world in the 60s and 70s. You can look it up. They worked. Aerosol levels stopped increasing and begain to decline.
Yea right, like in Red China and The Soviet Union.
Very funny.
ChrisD says:
October 29, 2010 at 3:13 am
Clean air acts were passed
Ya, politicians saved us.
You are an animal of politics ChrisD. That is why you look so bad when it comes to talking about science. Average people can smell a rat when they hear propaganda.
ChrisD says:
October 29, 2010 at 3:13 am
Clean air acts were passed all over the world in the 60s and 70s. You can look it up. They worked
You give credit to politicians for changing the weather. But what really happened what the Great Pacific Climate Shift:
Mother Nature changes climate all by herself, though little politicians try to take credit for it:
Yea right, like in Red China and The Soviet Union.
Very funny.
Like I said, you could look it up. If you’re not going to bother, I can’t say that I’m terribly shocked. So much more fun to live in a fantasy fact-free universe where you know things without having to do any research or know any facts.
Ok, would Cambodia be a better example?
So much more fun to live in a fantasy fact-free universe where you know things without having to do any research or know any facts.
A case of projection.
If you people aren’t going to bother to even look for information on what happened to global aerosol levels after the 60s, you’re just willfully ignorant. It’s pathetic. “This fact would be inconvenient if true, therefore I’m not going to look for any data and simply assert that it’s false and politically motivated.”
That’s just sad.
ChrisD:
Are you actually that dense or are you attempting to discredit the AGW faithful with your dense comments.
I can not figure out your line of reasoning. When predictions are made those who made the predictions will take every opportunity to bring up every event that proves their predictions are accurate. The entire purpose for mentioning the recent storm was to provide evidence that the predictions were accurate even if the predictors claim that any weather event proves the predictions are accurate.
That claim in itself makes the predictions worthless and less than “Trash Talk”.
“You have completely failed to address the point of this article. The premise behind the Salon story was fatally flawed, by their own argument.”
Of course he failed.
He can not grasp the possibility that powerful storms can occur whether the world is warming or cooling.
Since the two awesome storms of 1975 and 2010 happened in both a cooling world and a warming world.It can not prove either global warming or global cooling.
This is what ChrisD missed:
“More extreme, unprecedented weather? Who could have predicted it?”
It can not prove either global warming or global cooling.
Correct. And nobody said it did.
Do you lack interpretive skills?
No, I lack the dishonesty gene.
“Nope. You attempted to give the article a point that it doesn’t have. You blandly state that it claims that the storm proves global warming. It doesn’t. That’s the point. You’re claiming that it says something it doesn’t say. To put it more bluntly, you’re making stuff up.”
I already showed you what YOU missed based on the link inside the Salon article.
Remember this:
“Changes in winter cyclone frequencies and strengths simulated in enhanced greenhouse warming experiments: results from the models participating in the IPCC diagnostic exercise”
AND,
“looked at thirteen models used to formulate the 2007 IPCC Climate Change report. Of these models, eleven simulated an increase in the number and intensity of the most intense cyclones (<970 mb pressure) in the climate expected by 2100."
Salon POSTED that link for a reason.Can you figure it out?
You totally ignored what I already pointed out in regard to that link.
These are not the same statements:
A. “We can expect an increased frequency of big storms with global warming.”
B. “This big storm proves global warming.”
Do you seriously think that those are the same thing? The article said A. Steve claims it said B. He is wrong.
Chris, let me ask you something. If the reference to the storm isn’t to back up their claims about global warming then why do you think they mentioned the storm?
John Endicott,
I agree. It’s obvious. That was the reason for the story in Salon. The the article is about global warming alarm. I don’t know how that can be missed. It is curious why ChrisD can’t see that. I don’t think denial is the right word for it. Maybe blinded is the right word.
John Endicott says:
Chris, let me ask you something. If the reference to the storm isn’t to back up their claims about global warming then why do you think they mentioned the storm?
————————
Amazingly enough, Chris can take the time to get into pissing contests over a humorous Bigfoot and fake moonlandings posting but can’t find the time to answer a simple question.
Maybe because I’ve already answered the same question in slightly different costumes multiple times.
The underlying point of the article is that GW is expected to increase the frequency of large storms. Given that fact, it was not difficult to predict that there would be large storms.
Now, you may not agree with that, which is fine. I have no problem with that.
But do you really, really not see the stark difference between that and “This storm proves global warming”? Really truly seriously?
ChrisD says:
The underlying point of the article is that GW is expected to increase the frequency of large storms. Given that fact, it was not difficult to predict that there would be large storms.
——————–
Yep increase them right back to where they were in the 70s makes perfect sense (as Steve would probably say) 🙂
ChrisD says:
But do you really, really not see the stark difference between that and “This storm proves global warming”? Really truly seriously?
——
Do you really, really not see how “GW will increase frequency of storm, see here’s an example of it happening” is what the article in question is doing?
John Endicott says:
Do you really, really not see how “GW will increase frequency of storm, see here’s an example of it happening” is what the article in question is doing?
————–
At the very least, Chris, even if you do not agree that that is the articles intention can you not see how it is that that is the way the article comes across
John,
Chris doesn’t think…he regurgitates.
BTW here is another little tidbit about global cooling fears in the 70s.
A 1974 CIA document alluding to climate change. The summary follows:
“Summary:
The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climate era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600-1850)-era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.”
Question: What LITTLE event took place around 1600-1850?
P.S. I’ve take the luxury of bolding some words Chris may recognize.
P.P.S. I’m still trying to hunt down the referenced University of Wisconsin paper.
Robb says:
Chris doesn’t think…he regurgitates.
——–
Yeah but I live in hope that one day he’ll use his head for more than a hatrack. 😉
John Endicott says:
October 29, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Do you really, really not see how “GW will increase frequency of storm, see here’s an example of it happening” is what the article in question is doing?
I agree John, the article is not doing that. There is no mention, or inference, to increasing in frequency. There is a clear inference to intensity.
The article wants the reader to infer that global warming is obviously happening because of the storm, quote, the “land hurricane” or “weather bomb”, unquote. And that, quote, (Minnesota Republicans like gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer and House incumbent Michele Bachmann are leading global warming deniers.), unquote. Inferring to the reader that ‘deniers’ are off beam, or something of that sort. Also inferring that republicans are deniers and not democrats.
Makes me wonder if ChrisD is a Democrat.
Scientists can create job security for themselves, and fame, by saying there is a serious problem, and then saying they need more money to study it to find solutions:
ChrisD
“To command wind and rain” is how the Russian Communist politicians put it. Now you are saying American politicians controlled climate with a clean air act.
The 1970’s fears of global cooling of cooling are often exaggerated, but still real. Among other things, these played a large role in the expansion NOAA’s climate research. For details see the letter sent to President Nixon (imitating Einstein’s letter to FDR) dated 3 December 1972, on slide 6 of ”The Origins of a ‘diagnostics climate center“, Robert W. Reeves and Daphne Gemmill (NOAA), posted at the NOAA website — presented at the 29th Annual Climate Diagnostics & Prediction Workshop, 20 October 2004.
URL:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw29_proceedings/reeves.ppt#313,1,The Origins of a “diagnostics climate center”
Here is the text of the presentation:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw29_proceedings/Reeves.pdf
The Science article about the conference was “The Present Interglacial, How and When Will it End?”, G. J. Kukla and R. K. Matthews, 13 October 1972.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/178/4057/190.pdf
To learn what happened after Nixon read the letter see
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/letter/
(2) My nominee for the best summary of expert opinion at that time is the preface to The Cooling by Lowell Ponte (1974). It’s by Reid A. Bryson — an atmospheric scientist, geologist and meteorologist; Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies at the U of Wisconsin – Madison; designated Global Laureate by the UN Global Environment Program in 1990.
URL:
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/cooling-3/
(3) For a summary of research at that time:
“A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems”, CIA, August 1974 — Posted at Climate Monitory. It’s a discussion of the effect if our global climate returns to the conditions of the last 400 years (the little ice age).
URL:
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
(4) For a specific example of 1970’s climate science, estimating the opposing forces of particulates and co2, see “Global Cooling?”, Paul E. Damon and Steven M. Kunen, Science, 6 August 1976.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/193/4252/447
It was aerosols in the 70’s it’s co2 now. Politicians are taking credit for saving the world from the coming ice age. They want to take credit for the warming that has already ended. Nothing is different.
The scare over global warming is exactly the same as the scare over the coming ice age. Same techniques used in both—exactly the same.
The scare over global warming is exactly the same as the scare over the coming ice age
No, it’s really not. There are thousands of peer-reviewed articles supporting CO2 as an agent of warming. There were essentially none supporting a “coming ice age”. You really don’t recognize that this is a significant difference?
Pleezzz – spare us.
Steve,
Chris D is correct, IMO. I’ve done a literature search and can find few forecasts of global cooling during the 1970s in the major peer-reviewed literature. Most climate science articles mention both warming and cooling forces.
Some of the often-cited articles are misrepresented. For analysis of one example see:
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/cooling-2/
Omited from the above comment —
Here is the result of my search: Science & climate – the history of fears about the climate.
URL:
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/science-history/
It’s not complete, of course. But it’s a start. I’m slowly adding links to the titles.
That is so weird that people in the 1970s didn’t put their papers on the Internet.
Many of the major journals have their archives largely digitalized, such as Science (note all the links on my list). Their citations provided snapshots of the current literature.
Many more (most?) have the abstracts online going back thru the 1970’s.
In any case, people asserting that there was some sort of consensus about global cooling (rather than the proven widespread concern) should provide more of a factual basis than citing articles in the general media. I’ve lost the thread here, so this does not refer to any specific comments (off-topic: FWIW, I agree that more aggressive moderation would improve the discussion).
The NCAR graph at the top of the article shows that it was cooling rapidly. Your argument is a nonsensical straw man.
The NCAR graph at the top of the article shows that it was cooling rapidly. Your argument is a nonsensical straw man
Wow. Talk about straw men.
Do you honestly not understand that no one on this entire page said that it wasn’t cooling, or do you do this on purpose?
Steve,
I don’t understand the basis for this disagreement, or the relevance of your replies. Which seems odd given the nature of your website, and its usual reliance on hard evidence. To re-state the evidence shown above:
(1) There was cooling during the 1970’s.
(2) Many scientists worried that the cooling would continue. For instance, NOAA’s history shows the large role concern about cooling played in the 1979 creation of NOAA’s Climate Analysis Center (CAC).
(3) Many scientists worried that warming would become the primary trend.
(4) Determining the balance of opinions would require much effort. The only attempt I’ve seen is “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus“, Thomas C. Petersona, William M. Connolley, and John Fleckc, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, September 2008. Connolley’s history as an activist IMO diminishes my confidence in its conclusions.
URL:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
(5) Many (most?) journal articles in the 1970’s refer to both cooling and warming. See one example above; see the list mentioned above for many more.
(6) Skeptics often misrepresent or exaggerate conclusions of the 1970s articles. See above for one example. Peterson et al gives other examples.
Kukla from (then) Czekoslovakia was predicting a return to ice age during the 70s based on Milankovich like parameters such as obliquity and perihelion.
However his ethnicity would exclude him from the US academic discussion of climate.
He might still be right.
LONG term climate records from written history and geological sources show a trend towards cooling with minor warming events that interrupt the longer trend. This has been going on since about 5 thousand BCE, Give of take a few thousand years. The glaciers melting are uncovering trees that grew during those warm periods in locations where trees are not able to grow yet. The science claims of the 70s has yet to be falsified with real world evidence or replaced by a better theory. There has been a tendency to play what if games on computers to promote funding for further research that only results in promoting further research rather than finding answers that relate to real world events. It took a biologist studying the patterns of fish to discover the PDO!
Fabius Maximus says:
October 30, 2010 at 5:15 pm
The only attempt I’ve seen is “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus“, Thomas C. Petersona, William M. Connolley, and John Fleckc, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, September 2008. Connolley’s history as an activist IMO diminishes my confidence in its conclusions.
Indeed, Connolley’s modus operandi is the same as that of Joseph Stalin who was given a nickname that would equally well suit Connolley: “comrade card index”. Stalin would sit in the Soviet Bolshevik’s archive room and spend hours sorting through the party’s card index, identifying individuals who showed less than total loyalty to Stalin and the ideas he represented, and arranging for their deletion.
Connolley’s authorship in The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus simply confirms the nature of this document as a working internal memo within a psycopathic totalitarian regime. Perhaps Connolley had a role to play in the disappearence of scientific papers predicting cooling? “Papers – what papers??”
You might be right about that article. But Connolley’s co-authorship is IMO not sufficient grounds to toss its conclusions. I believe this tendency to toss conclusions b/ of their source — not their content — is a major reason America’s mental wheels spin but produce so few useful conclusions. Debates become as meaningful as children’s snowball fights.
If this is conclusion is so clear, than why does someone not write a rebuttal to Peterson’s article?
It is like trying to write a rebuttal to any climate science article. The history of futility is out there to see of people who attempted to make even minor corrections to Peer-reviewed papers. If you are not a part of the in crowd or have a point that contributes to the agenda you become an outcast. There has not been real debate regarding climate science since the IPCC started.
It comes down to being either a climate realist or a promoter of fairy tales, there is no longer a middle ground.