• 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!

The Origin of the 1970's Global Cooling Scare

Threegoofs said:
Odd that the National Academy of Science hasn’t picked up on your incisive analysis.

Oh, wait. Wrong word. Not odd.
Click to expand...

Greetings, ThreeGoofs. :2wave:

It has been said that the passage of time is a great equalizer when it comes to the future. I believe our Constitution and Bill of Rights is unique in history, and have been our protection for hundreds of years, so while some seem to be trying to do away with Amendments they don't agree with, is that the smartest path to take, and an even bigger question comes to mind - Why has it become so important now? :!:
 
Surface Detail said:
No. You cannot arbitrarily pick the parts of a reference that support your argument and dismiss those that don't, and then expect to be taken any more seriously than the child who sticks his fingers in his ears to block out the things he doesn't like.

Anyway, enough of this silliness. I'm off to bed now. Feel free to have the last word if you must.
Click to expand...

“Practicing in different worlds, the two groups of scientists see different things when they look from the same point in the same direction. Again, that is not to say that they can see anything they please. Both are looking at the world, and what they look at has not changed. But in some areas they see different things, and they see them in different relations one to the other. That is why a law that cannot even be demonstrated to one group of scientists may occasionally seem intuitively obvious to another.”
–Thomas Kuhn, 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Vol. II, No. 2 p. 150
 
Surface Detail said:
Let me write this in simple English:

Aerosols have a cooling effect. Hansen wrote a program to work out how much aerosols were cooling Venus. He allowed others to use his program to work out how much aerosols were cooling Earth. This does not mean that he thought the Earth would cool in the future; indeed, he was one of the first to point out that the greenhouse effect would be stronger than the aerosol cooling effect. He has since been proved correct.
Click to expand...

Aerosols have been known to have a cooling effect and they are trotted out by alarmists whenever they need to explain why their high-sensitivity models failed ... and since all their models have degrees of high sensitivity it's not news that they have to do something to explain the failure.

Despite cautious warnings, soon after WWII our government was encouraged to maintain its own cadre of scientists on the U.S. payroll. Such an arrangement can encourage something other than science.
A few decades later Government scientists decided that their position was going to be warming.
To bring it home, that would be after the ice age scare of the 70's ... which by the way was believed by more than Rasool and Schneider ... and Hansen.

Tell you what, if you can produce a comment by Hansen from 1971 that says he was glad his program was used to help Rasool conclude there might be an ice age in the offing but that he personally didn't subscribe to it at that time even though it was taken seriously by many others ... then I will admit it too.
 
Last edited:
polgara said:
Greetings, ThreeGoofs. :2wave:

It has been said that the passage of time is a great equalizer when it comes to the future. I believe our Constitution and Bill of Rights is unique in history, and have been our protection for hundreds of years, so while some seem to be trying to do away with Amendments they don't agree with, is that the smartest path to take, and an even bigger question comes to mind - Why has it become so important now? :!:
Click to expand...

Not sure what this All has to do with anything.

The physical fact of anthropogenic warning really doesn’t care what’s in the Bill of Rights, and isn’t impressed by unique history.
 
longview said:
They may be aware, but like the sensitivity of the atmosphere to added CO2, they could have the value way off.
Consider that the stated Amplified feedback ECS is between .4 and 3.4 C above the input from CO2 radiative forcing.
That means the high end of the range is 8.5 times larger than the low end.
Also if ""Future aerosol decreases could be responsible for 30–40 % of total climate warming" how much of the
past warming was a result of aerosol decreases from the 1970's to 1990's?
Click to expand...

This is a huge factor that I have argued before. A large reason why CO2 sensitivity is rated too high. The warming from the reduction of aerosols found its way onto miscalculating CO2 sensitivity.
 
Lord of Planar said:
This is a huge factor that I have argued before. A large reason why CO2 sensitivity is rated too high. The warming from the reduction of aerosols found its way onto miscalculating CO2 sensitivity.
Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, there are whole sections of the IPCC reports dedicated to quantifying the effect of aerosols on global temperature so that their effect can be taken into account. How strange that one so well-read as yourself should be unaware of this!

See, for example: Clouds and Aerosols
 
Surface Detail said:
But it's not science until they explain how they reached their conclusions!
Click to expand...
People are allowed theories and hypothesis, and they are valid until invalidated.
As to global cooling, scientist were clearly concerned enough that a NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES report
was generated. So some group of Scientist clearly looked at the data, and thought we were entering a cooling phase.
They may have been right, and our CO2 emissions saved us all from the true misery that would
accompany an ice age.
 
Surface Detail said:
Unsurprisingly, there are whole sections of the IPCC reports dedicated to quantifying the effect of aerosols on global temperature so that their effect can be taken into account. How strange that one so well-read as yourself should be unaware of this!

See, for example: Clouds and Aerosols
Click to expand...
What is missing from the IPCC chapter, is actual ground energy measurements from the 1970's vs current.
How much of the sun's energy is reaching the ground today, vs, in the past.
 
longview said:
What is missing from the IPCC chapter, is actual ground energy measurements from the 1970's vs current.
How much of the sun's energy is reaching the ground today, vs, in the past.
Click to expand...

Then they love to use the 70's to say how much it has warmed since.

And the idiots eat it up...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Then they love to use the 70's to say how much it has warmed since.

And the idiots eat it up...
Click to expand...

All of us who are old enough to remember the 70's, know that the skies are a lot clearer,
it likely also had an effect on how much energy reaches the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom