• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global Cooling Science in the 1970's

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here we have some interesting skeletons in the climate closet. Once upon a time global cooling was a fashionable topic. Here's an example.




Stephen H. Schneider’s 1970s Snowball Earth

Posted on 14 Sep 16 by JAIME JESSOP • 40 Comments

Kenneth Richard is talking about a massive cover-up of a global cooling consensus in the 60s-80s over at Pierre Gosselin’s NoTricksZone – chief culprit the infamous Wiki climate change revisionist William Connolley. Coincidentally, I was talking about the global cooling scare on here just a few days ago. I mentioned Schneider in particular who, in apaper co-authored with S. I. Rasool published in 1972 says: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 . . . . . . 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 ° 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.Kenneth Richard cites a 1974 paper by Schneider as one of 285 scientific studies which he believes clearly demonstrates an 83% scientific global cooling consensus at that time. Two years on from his earlier study, Schneider still seems convinced that it is the cooling influence of anthropogenic aerosols, not warming CO2, which is the serious threat to global climate. He changed his mind, as is his scientific perogative, as the weight of evidence swung firmly in favour of an overwhelming warming anthropogenic influence (less generously, one might say he noticed that the wind was blowing in the opposite direction, hopped off the cooling bandwagon and swiftly jumped on the global warming bus). Whatever, he was in no doubt in the early 1970s that the earth had cooled considerably during the 1940s-60s: . . .
 
One different view that didn't pan out is a 'skeleton in the closet?'

You really, really do not understand the process of science and particularly how one hypothesis among many very different ones attempting to explain an observation wins out over others. For every theory that wins out because it is the best fit for current evidence, there are piles and piles of others that do not bare out.

Every theory gets poked and prodded hard. It has to. Science cannot operate like religion or politics ... for theory and research to become adopted, it must endure measurement against competing theories, and very thorough and methodical prodding at data collection methodology and analysis. Alternative theories need to be tested against the observations versus the current hypothesis to see if one is a better fit.

This is how science has been done since the advent of the Scientific Method.
 
DirtyRat said:
One different view that didn't pan out is a 'skeleton in the closet?'

You really, really do not understand the process of science and particularly how one hypothesis among many very different ones attempting to explain an observation wins out over others. For every theory that wins out because it is the best fit for current evidence, there are piles and piles of others that do not bare out.

Every theory gets poked and prodded hard. It has to. Science cannot operate like religion or politics ... for theory and research to become adopted, it must endure measurement against competing theories, and very thorough and methodical prodding at data collection methodology and analysis. Alternative theories need to be tested against the observations versus the current hypothesis to see if one is a better fit.

This is how science has been done since the advent of the Scientific Method.
Click to expand...

I guess that's why so many papers have been "disappeared."

History rewritten, Global Cooling from 1940 – 1970, an 83% consensus, 285 papers being “erased”


The Global Cooling Scare of the 1970s was real, there was a consensus, and it was all over the media. It flies in the face of the man-made warming campaign. After World War II there was a massive industrial escalation in the West. And just as coal fired power was going in everywhere, the world damnwell cooled by -0.3°C. It’s obvious that the modern Climate Witches don’t want people bringing this up.
…
​
Where’s that cooling gone? The modern NASA GISS dataset adjusted it away:

What happened to 40 years of cooling from WWII onewards?
​
That’s the magic of homogenisation.
In 2008, Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck published “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” . The Myth paper “found” that from 1965 through 1979, there were only 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers. It was published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), showing how pathetically weak the caliber of review is there. Kenneth Richard searched, found and documents 220 papers, not 7 in the same period. He estimates there are probably many more.
The Connolley there is none other than the William Connolly who abused Wikipedia’s editing rules — barred 2,000 other Wiki editors that he disagreed with, and changed over 5,000 articles to conform with his personal warming religion and his Greens political activism. Apparently he’s used the same flagrant bias in the peer review literature. Wiki took away his Admin status, which appears to be a higher standard than AMS. So much for “peer review”.
[h=4]It’s all on NoTricksZone where he finds 285 papers from the 1960s-’80s that reveal the Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’.[/h]It was the “prevailing view” in Stewart and Glantz, 1985:
“in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2°C cooling. ”
Keep reading →
 
You selectively assert that evidence coming from the same source that accurately forecasts weather and storms, saving lives along the hurricane-prone gulf coast and tornado-prone midwest and anyplace subject to such weather events, needs to be tossed out because a crackpot claiming carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas said it wasn't?

His hypothesis did not pan out.

Again, you fail at basic science comprehension. Please do not ever attempt to represent science until you've had at least a fundamental education on the process of developing a hypothesis, experimentation and observation, and peer review.

A half-second glass tells you which of those charts has selective homogenisation, and which has more thorough datapoints ... but it doesn't fit your conclusion soaked into your head by your capitalist overlords making a killing off not responsibly handling their negative externalities so you maintain your bias against consensus. And no, there was NEVER a consensus that the earth was headed for an ice age.
 
DirtyRat said:
You selectively assert that evidence coming from the same source that accurately forecasts weather and storms, saving lives along the hurricane-prone gulf coast and tornado-prone midwest and anyplace subject to such weather events, needs to be tossed out because a crackpot claiming carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas said it wasn't?

His hypothesis did not pan out.

Again, you fail at basic science comprehension. Please do not ever attempt to represent science until you've had at least a fundamental education on the process of developing a hypothesis, experimentation and observation, and peer review.

A half-second glass tells you which of those charts has selective homogenisation, and which has more thorough datapoints ... but it doesn't fit your conclusion soaked into your head by your capitalist overlords making a killing off not responsibly handling their negative externalities so you maintain your bias against consensus. And no, there was NEVER a consensus that the earth was headed for an ice age.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your post is incomprehensibly irrational. Come back after you have collected your thoughts.
 
Jack Hays said:
Here we have some interesting skeletons in the climate closet. Once upon a time global cooling was a fashionable topic. Here's an example.




Stephen H. Schneider’s 1970s Snowball Earth

Posted on 14 Sep 16 by JAIME JESSOP • 40 Comments

Kenneth Richard is talking about a massive cover-up of a global cooling consensus in the 60s-80s over at Pierre Gosselin’s NoTricksZone – chief culprit the infamous Wiki climate change revisionist William Connolley. Coincidentally, I was talking about the global cooling scare on here just a few days ago. I mentioned Schneider in particular who, in apaper co-authored with S. I. Rasool published in 1972 says: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 . . . . . . 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 ° 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.Kenneth Richard cites a 1974 paper by Schneider as one of 285 scientific studies which he believes clearly demonstrates an 83% scientific global cooling consensus at that time. Two years on from his earlier study, Schneider still seems convinced that it is the cooling influence of anthropogenic aerosols, not warming CO2, which is the serious threat to global climate. He changed his mind, as is his scientific perogative, as the weight of evidence swung firmly in favour of an overwhelming warming anthropogenic influence (less generously, one might say he noticed that the wind was blowing in the opposite direction, hopped off the cooling bandwagon and swiftly jumped on the global warming bus). Whatever, he was in no doubt in the early 1970s that the earth had cooled considerably during the 1940s-60s: . . .
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

The change in emphasis from cooling to warming was inevitable, when you stop to think about it. Who could be held responsible for cooling? Nobody. But warming is different, because we are all guilty of breathing, therefore we will have to pay for that shortcoming! Brilliant! *sarcasm intended* :lamo
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

The change in emphasis from cooling to warming was inevitable, when you stop to think about it. Who could be held responsible for cooling? Nobody. But warming is different, because we are all guilty of breathing, therefore we will have to pay for that shortcoming! Brilliant! *sarcasm intended* :lamo
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

If you did not already exist we would have to invent you.:mrgreen:
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but your post is incomprehensibly irrational. Come back after you have collected your thoughts.
Click to expand...

So long as facts and science remains irrational to you while crackpots are real, you are incapable of comprehending any topic of science.
 
DirtyRat said:
So long as facts and science remains irrational to you while crackpots are real, you are incapable of comprehending any topic of science.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to Stephen Schneider as a crackpot?

[h=3]Stephen Schneider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider


Wikipedia


Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 – July 19, 2010) was Professor of Environmental ....Stephen H. Schneider, Tim Flannery introduction (2009) Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save the Earth's Climate. National ...
‎Early work · ‎Media contributions · ‎Honors · ‎Personal
 
Oh god Jack hays thinks there was a global cooling consensus doesn't he
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

The change in emphasis from cooling to warming was inevitable, when you stop to think about it. Who could be held responsible for cooling? Nobody. But warming is different, because we are all guilty of breathing, therefore we will have to pay for that shortcoming! Brilliant! *sarcasm intended* :lamo
Click to expand...

Would it surprise you to learn there never actually was a change? That warming was always the majority belief?
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes. And your point is . . . . ?
Click to expand...

... wait, what? You don't find that to be meaningful?

Jesus you really have missed the entire argument.
 
Deuce said:
... wait, what? You don't find that to be meaningful?

Jesus you really have missed the entire argument.
Click to expand...

Not meaningful at all. First, your claim is false. Second, that sort or alarmist gloss on routine news is par for the AGW course anyway. The cover-up of a previous consensus is being exposed.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not meaningful at all. First, your claim is false. Second, that sort or alarmist gloss on routine news is par for the AGW course anyway. The cover-up of a previous consensus is being exposed.
Click to expand...

You're wrong about the entire concept of this argument. I'll explain it to you:

The argument is that in the 1970s, all the scientists were predicting global cooling. The implication is that they don't really know what's going on. "See, they used to say cooling in the future and now they say warming in the future!"

(as if "scientists obtain more data and change their opinion to reflect it" is some damning thing, lol)

But that "in the future" part is the thing you've missed. These "erased" (and by "erased" we mean still published and available for all to see) papers often just note that recently it cooled down. (recent from the 1970s timeframe)

Which is ****ing true and nobody has ever tried to hide that. Have you never looked at a temperature plot over the last century? Did you never notice that decline that started around 1940 but then reversed later?

Are you really trying to suggest the fact that it briefly cooled is something anyone is trying to hide?
 
Deuce said:
Would it surprise you to learn there never actually was a change? That warming was always the majority belief?
Click to expand...

Greetings, Deuce. :2wave:

Yes, that would surprise me, because I remember the underground home building and other shelters that took place here in NE Ohio - and we're used to lots and lots of snow, and minus 10 degree days around here are commonplace! The guys with snow blades on their trucks do very well indeed around here in the Winter months. :mrgreen: I don't recall hearing anything about warming - it was always about drastic cooling, and people were frightened, because they knew what extreme cold felt like, and it was going to get worse? :shock:
 
Deuce said:
You're wrong about the entire concept of this argument. I'll explain it to you:

The argument is that in the 1970s, all the scientists were predicting global cooling. The implication is that they don't really know what's going on. "See, they used to say cooling in the future and now they say warming in the future!"

(as if "scientists obtain more data and change their opinion to reflect it" is some damning thing, lol)

But that "in the future" part is the thing you've missed. These "erased" (and by "erased" we mean still published and available for all to see) papers often just note that recently it cooled down. (recent from the 1970s timeframe)

Which is ****ing true and nobody has ever tried to hide that. Have you never looked at a temperature plot over the last century? Did you never notice that decline that started around 1940 but then reversed later?

Are you really trying to suggest the fact that it briefly cooled is something anyone is trying to hide?
Click to expand...

What I'm suggesting is that the observed cooling was the basis of a cooling consensus that is now being denied.
 
Jack Hays said:
What I'm suggesting is that the observed cooling was the basis of a cooling consensus that is now being denied.
Click to expand...

It was also denied at the time, because there was no such consensus at the time.

Because a different idea is discussed and debated does /not/ grant it the status of consensus, particularly among scientists.

Again, you completely fail to understand the exquisitely exhaustive process scientific theories must pass through before they can be considered valid and tested.
 
DirtyRat said:
It was also denied at the time, because there was no such consensus at the time.

Because a different idea is discussed and debated does /not/ grant it the status of consensus, particularly among scientists.

Again, you completely fail to understand the exquisitely exhaustive process scientific theories must pass through before they can be considered valid and tested.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom