The Day of Reckoning

[Threegoofs]

It was no myth. I remember many scientists at the time citing our culpability for this phenomenon as well. Many of those went on to milk the new warming 'panic' a couple of decades later. The media didnt just suddenly make up a new ice age scare off its own back it cited the climate expert opinion of that era.

Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

Again, you miss the concept of WHAT WAS IN THE PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE AT THE TIME.

And it was basically not much, balanced by several articles predicting potential warming based upon CO2 accumulation.

Your memory is selective, and flawed.

 

[Threegoofs]

I know Threegoofs has already called you on this, but why aren't you posting scholarly journal articles? You're posting blogs, not academic literature. That might help your credibility.

Here, let me do it for him.

A review article that basically says the opposite of what flogger says. Most of the literature was on warming back then.

But in the face of repeated epic fail, I have no doubt flogger will reply.


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

 

[jmotivator]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the models.

Obviously you don't understand how models work. But feel free to explain your understanding of the role that direct measurable variables play in model runs.

And nobody ever said solar variance played "little to no role" in climate fluctuation. Literally nobody has ever said that.

The IPCC, Real Climate and Skeptical Science (etc. etc.) have all spent a lot of energy trying to downplay the role of solar variance in global warming. You must live under a rock.

When someone says "solar variation cannot account for the most recent temperature trend," they aren't saying "solar variation has no influence ever."

Hah, you realize that isn't what I said, I'm sure. But you needed to misquote me in order to make your failed point.

Your first quote was exactly what I am saying. You say that someone said "solar variation cannot account for the most recent temperature trend"... that's cool, but YOU have just argued above that solar variance is why THE MODELS ARE WRONG. The funniest part about your argument is that it has been known for a LONG TIME that Solar Cycle 22 was a maximum and that a decline was on the way. This is well known... so how did the climate scientists not incorporate this in their models if, as you say, that is what they failed to do?

 

[flogger]

I know Threegoofs has already called you on this, but why aren't you posting scholarly journal articles? You're posting blogs, not academic literature. That might help your credibility.

I've probably posted more scholarly items on this issue on this forum in my time here than the great majority of posters . You express concerns about my credibility but I can assure you that given the ever increasing skeptical viewpoints expressed here ,cuddling up to our resident troll will do little to enhance yours

More on the academic background for the 70s cooling scare here.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/the-1970s-ice-age-scare/

Back in the 70s I watched the documentaries and current affairs programmes of the time and listened to the expert opinions expressed. Much as there has been subsequent attempts to rewrite history, the panic was very real at the time I can assure you

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I've probably posted more scholarly items on this issue on this forum in my time here than the great majority of posters . You express concerns about my credibility but I can assure you that given the ever increasing skeptical viewpoints expressed here ,cuddling up to our resident troll will do little to enhance yours

I'll worry about my own reputation. So, what you're saying here is "trust me." Uhh - no.

 

[flogger]

I'll worry about my own reputation. So, what you're saying here is "trust me." Uhh - no.

Fine go with the boy blunder then . Its your loss :roll:

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Fine go with the boy blunder then . Its your loss :roll:

I'll go with the side that cites scholarly literature and not blogs, so far I've seen Three at least post one. :shrug:

And seeing how he claims his journal is the "opposite" of what you posted, why don't you retort with a scholarly journal of your own? Otherwise it's safe to assume you lack such sources.

 

[flogger]

I'll go with the side that cites scholarly literature and not blogs, so far I've seen Three at least post one. :shrug:

And seeing how he claims his journal is the "opposite" of what you posted, why don't you retort with a scholarly journal of your own? Otherwise it's safe to assume you lack such sources.

Finding 40 year old and now long since redundant climate studies online is highly improbable to say the least ! Any that do still exist will doubtless languish behind pay walls. In light of that all we have left is quotes and citations from the experts of the time ,many of which are contained in the multiple sublinks I've already posted . I also trust my own memory of the events even if you dont as the scare lasted for most of the decade.

Do you know that not a single study has ever been published that empirically (important word) establishes the quantifiable link between CO2 and temperature ? The whole current hypothesis is based on computer modelled guesswork and as the OP has made clear that guesswork is coming apart at the seams in light of real world observations

 

[Threegoofs]

....aaaand watch the pivot.


When you disprove one thing directly, they ignore it and move to another thing. The global cooling myth is bull****, and the published science at the time proves it, as was confirmed by the peer reviewed paper I posted.

Now he wants quantitative data on CO2 and temperature. There are entire, referenced sections on this in the IPCC, of course, and multiple papers calculating the effect in watts per meter squared. But he will deny...and pivot.

Bet he didn't bother to look at the article. After all, he 'remembers'.

 

[flogger]

...aaaand watch the trolling.

Anyone my age or older that had half an interest back then remembers these events and that it was a big deal at the time. The subsequent historical revisionism is for the benefit of those who werent :roll:

 

[Threegoofs]

Trolling apparently means proving you wrong, eh?

I confess.

 

[flogger]

No its just trolling and I'm not feeding you any more ...... :bolt

 

[Threegoofs]

Run, little one, run!

 

[flogger]

I'll worry about my own reputation. So, what you're saying here is "trust me." Uhh - no.

Do you think the media arent primarily responsible for driving this panic too because todays stories seem identical to those of 40 years ago ? Few studies pedal the scare stories that have been used to drive this agenda along. Its the selective misrepresentation of them that has done so . Panic sells and the politicians can also ride it for all its worth. Here is an example of how the politicians have used such misrepresentations for public broadcast in the UK, where there are no scruples about scaring even the kiddies with this bull.

Act on CO2: Bedtime Story - YouTube

 

[Threegoofs]

More on the academic background for the 70s cooling scare here.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/the-1970s-ice-age-scare/

Wow. Checking out the link reveals (and this is no exaggeration) newspaper clippings and Time magazine headlines, plus a couple books from Amazon.

"Academic background"?

I have no doubt, and do remember, news reports of an ice age coming...usually after a cold spell or big snowstorm.

I understand your skepticism now. You must watch Fox News and consider that 'academic background'.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I know Threegoofs has already called you on this, but why aren't you posting scholarly journal articles? You're posting blogs, not academic literature. That might help your credibility.

He doesn't really know what those are.

 

[flogger]

What part of 'I'm not feeding you anymore' was in any way unclear for you ?

 

[flogger]

He doesn't really know what those are.

Oh gawd not another sniper ..... :roll:

Heads up. As per the OP I'm not the one with the increasingly dodgy hypothesis to defend in the face of inconvenient real world observations.

 

[DDD]

The day of the reckoning is certainly the climax of the whole experience!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBhRKx4po4s

 

[MoSurveyor]

Oh gawd not another sniper ..... :roll:

Heads up. As per the OP I'm not the one with the increasingly dodgy hypothesis to defend in the face of inconvenient real world observations.

Heads up: As per many conversations, I have nothing to defend to you.

Doesn't change my belief about science, though, or your disbelief and conspiracy theories.

 

[longview]

I have been looking for an actual published paper that supports the physics
behind the hypothesis of AGW. I have found this one,
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032<0003:TEODTC>2.0.CO;2
Published in 1974, does not presume that AGW is completed science.
The paper does go into the physics I have been looking for somewhat.
They stated that they kept cloud cover a constant in their model, which would effect actual vs modeled
results.
Clive Best has a good discussion as to why the sensitivity to Co2 may not be so high.
Doubling CO2 and basic physics | Clive Best
Both are good reads for people interested in real discussions of the physics.

 

[flogger]

Heads up: As per many conversations, I have nothing to defend to you.

Doesn't change my belief about science, though, or your disbelief and conspiracy theories.

Do you play any other tunes ? :roll:

 

[MoSurveyor]

Do you play any other tunes ? :roll:

You don't so why should I bother?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Do you think the media arent primarily responsible for driving this panic too because todays stories seem identical to those of 40 years ago ? Few studies pedal the scare stories that have been used to drive this agenda along. Its the selective misrepresentation of them that has done so . Panic sells and the politicians can also ride it for all its worth. Here is an example of how the politicians have used such misrepresentations for public broadcast in the UK, where there are no scruples about scaring even the kiddies with this bull.

Act on CO2: Bedtime Story - YouTube

I'm sorry, when did the media become scientific? Oh, that's right, it didn't. So your real problem lies with the media, not the science. Gotcha.

Science (and the scientific method) operate indepedent of the media, despite what you may believe. People use something to spread their agenda, oh no! This is like the first time ever - right? :shock: /sarcasm

He doesn't really know what those are.

Well, he stumbled in to one from 1974 apparently. Is this evidence of evolution in action? :lol:

 

[flogger]

I'm sorry, when did the media become scientific? Oh, that's right, it didn't. So your real problem lies with the media, not the science. Gotcha.

No ... you got the media hype. You've got to look beyond that or else its really all just politics and vested interests. The correct value for the climate sensitivity for CO 2 has never been established amongst a plethora of other major variables that remain unknown yet are the basis for the climate models that underpin this whole hypothesis. We havent even been able to identify the human fingerprint on temperature against natural backround variation much less quantify its impact. The extremists here would legislate humanities economic future away despite all that !

Science (and the scientific method) operate indepedent of the media, despite what you may believe. People use something to spread their agenda, oh no! This is like the first time ever - right? :shock: /sarcasm

Sorry but you and your ilk view this issue from the media soundbite perspective not the scientific method

Well, he stumbled in to one from 1974 apparently. Is this evidence of evolution in action? :lol:

If you are simply here for a group hug with the diminishing band of fellow evangelists then dont waste my time :roll: