Can We Actually Even Tell if Humans Are Affecting the Climate?

[IanC]

PJ Lifestyle » Can We Actually Even Tell if Humans Are Affecting the Climate?

A very interesting op-ed. about how to do science really, with a hat tip to my favourite scientist Dick Feynman.

a quote from when he finally gets around to climate-

As we said, we’re pretty confident that there has been significant warming since the Little Ice Age. The controversy around “climate change” or “global warming” is all about what’s happening; the UN-approved explanation is that humans are releasing gases into the atmosphere that cause less heat to be radiated out into space, and thus causing the average temperature to rise, what’s called the “greenhouse effect.”


Aside: Now, just to try to forestall one of the usual threads of argument, there really is very little question the greenhouse effect actually exists — the natural temperature of a rock in orbit around the Sun at the same distance as the Earth is nearly -40°. So let’s not have the “but there’s no such thing” argument, okay?

If we plan another game of strong inference, what we want is an explanation for the rise in temperature, and particularly for the amount the temperature has gone up. There are a whole lot of different things that might explain it:
•Human-generated greenhouse gases might be doing it.
•Human changes in land use — like lots of asphalt highways, which are pretty black — might be causing the Earth to absorb more heat.
•There might be measurement error — we have to estimate the temperature based on thermometers around the world. Some of these thermometers themselves have had some pretty significant changes in their environments, like having a parking lot built around them, that would make the temperature higher locally. This would increase the measured average temperature, which would make it harder to find a natural explanation.
•There might be variations in the Sun’s output that cause the changes.
•There could be other factors than greenhouse gases that cause the Earth to retain more heat. (One interesting possibility that’s being explored is that more cosmic radiation might be causing cloud cover to change.)

Performing a good experiment to test each of these hypotheses is difficult: we can’t just make a spare Earth with no people, no roads, and a different influx of cosmic rays along with a different Sun maintaining standard conditions. So we have to use other methods.

and the conclusion-

The dark line is the actual measured temperature; the light blue band is the “95 percent confidence interval,” which is to say, that band of 20 to 1 odds. The hypothesis from the models lays down a bet of about 20 to 1 that the temperature will stay inside that light blue band.

The real temperature, however, says otherwise. It’s either already out of that confidence interval or it’s very close to the edge.

Why? We don’t know. Time for some new hypotheses.

someone here was talking about IPCC definitions of likely, very unlikely, etc. anyone care to guess what relationship reality has to climate models for temperature?

 

[flacaltenn]

That lull could change dramatically.. But the models would still be missing some important processes and variables driving the climate.

There is ONE process, that accounts for 25% of the observed warming that man has seen in the past century (even by the IPCC numbers) that HAS TAKEN a similiar lull in magnitude in the past couple decades.. And that is the Total Solar Irradiance number.. Funny how the "lull" in temperature, matches the drop in the rise of TSI aint it?

All those warming zealots that keep quoting Occams Razor --- time for a shave ????

 

[IanC]

I cant say that I trust TSI numbers, especially after Lean got steamrolled over her numbers. it is also very plausible that equal TSI can cause different effects depending on its actual make up. but that pales in comparison between the few extra useless watts the surface gets from disordered IR coming from the atmosphere, and the ordered energetic light we get from the sun.

 

[flacaltenn]

I cant say that I trust TSI numbers, especially after Lean got steamrolled over her numbers. it is also very plausible that equal TSI can cause different effects depending on its actual make up. but that pales in comparison between the few extra useless watts the surface gets from disordered IR coming from the atmosphere, and the ordered energetic light we get from the sun.

We WILL be able to trust the numbers going forward now with all those orbiting Solar Observatories. The 0.7W/m2 over the past century is a large part of the 3.0W/m2 or so that we are trying to account for.

No more climbing 15,000 ft mountains and taking limited measurements required. No more proxies required either.

And -- it is one of the processes that has PAUSED in a timely fashion to explain the decade of no significant warming..

 

[mamooth]

Dumb article. Rambled a bunch of disjointed nonsense, couldn't get near a point, and even tried to pass off debunked dishonest cult talking points like "warming has stopped". Sheesh. Fools the cultists, sure. But since it gets the basics that laughably wrong, why would anyone outside the cult take it seriously?

Oh, Pajamas? Right-wing extremist cult central? Come on, at least try to pretend to be independent.

 

[flacaltenn]

Dumb article. Rambled a bunch of disjointed nonsense, couldn't get near a point, and even tried to pass off debunked dishonest cult talking points like "warming has stopped". Sheesh. Fools the cultists, sure. But since it gets the basics that laughably wrong, why would anyone outside the cult take it seriously?

Oh, Pajamas? Right-wing extremist cult central? Come on, at least try to pretend to be independent.

The warming HAS -- within the bounds of statistical significance stopped for at least the eight years -- over the last 12 years it has slowed to barely statistically significant..

Let's get the basics right. Eh Denier?

 

[whitehall]

The US put a man on the moon in 1969 and similar technology during the 70's forecasted an ice age. The sad reality today is that government grants finance climate science research and you can bet your ass(ets) that the climate researchers want to keep themselves in Lexus cars and their kids in Ivy League colleges. The judgment of the scientific community regarding global warming is more about political climate than climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

The US put a man on the moon in 1969 and similar technology during the 70's forecasted an ice age. The sad reality today is that government grants finance climate science research and you can bet your ass(ets) that the climate researchers want to keep themselves in Lexus cars and their kids in Ivy League colleges. The judgment of the scientific community regarding global warming is more about political climate than climate.

And once more, you purposely lie. You are a dishonest peice of shit.

Were they really predicting an ice age in the 1970s? - CSMonitor.com

One common trope among climate change deniers is to point out that, in the 1970s, everyone was a panic about global cooling, even to the point of predicting an imminent ice age. If they were so spectacularly wrong back then, the argument goes, why should we be listening to them today?


The argument rests on an equivocation. In the 1970s, "they" refers to a handful of scientists making tentative predictions, and a handful of journalists who repeated those predictions. Today, "they" refers to every single major scientific body in the world. There's just no valid comparison.

In fact, back in the 1970s, more scientists were worried about global warming than its opposite. As USA Today reported last year, Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed 71 peer-reviewed articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven predicted falling temperatures. Some 44 predicted warming, and another 20 were neutral.

Science-type stuff


To clarify a little: I am interested in "Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's by scientists, in scientific journals?". That means articles in scientific journals and reputable books. I am not particularly interested in what appeared in the popular press or on TV and do not intend to discuss it here (but see context), since I do not regard these as reliable sources for scientific information.
Note that many of the oh-there-was-an-ice-age-predicted type articles tend to focus on non-science articles for their sources: newsweek, for example. This is cheating on their part. Newsweek isn't science, of course. If newsweek was quoting peer-reviewed journals, then they should go back to those.

We also need to know what we mean by "imminent". Since the question arises in the context of the greenhouse gas/climate change debate, "imminent" is a timescale comparable to greenhouse-type timescales: ie, the next century or so. See below for my take on long-term predictions.

Comments, clarifications and corrections to this page are welcome see comments or mail [email protected].



If you think you have a new reference that may be interesting, please send it to me. I don't guarantee to check it out immeadiately: you will need to have patience. However, I will list all outstanding references below:

 

[whitehall]

The US put a man on the moon in 1969 and similar technology during the 70's forecasted an ice age. The sad reality today is that government grants finance climate science research and you can bet your ass(ets) that the climate researchers want to keep themselves in Lexus cars and their kids in Ivy League colleges. The judgment of the scientific community regarding global warming is more about political climate than climate.

And once more, you purposely lie. You are a dishonest peice of shit.

Were they really predicting an ice age in the 1970s? - CSMonitor.com

One common trope among climate change deniers is to point out that, in the 1970s, everyone was a panic about global cooling, even to the point of predicting an imminent ice age. If they were so spectacularly wrong back then, the argument goes, why should we be listening to them today?


The argument rests on an equivocation. In the 1970s, "they" refers to a handful of scientists making tentative predictions, and a handful of journalists who repeated those predictions. Today, "they" refers to every single major scientific body in the world. There's just no valid comparison.

In fact, back in the 1970s, more scientists were worried about global warming than its opposite. As USA Today reported last year, Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed 71 peer-reviewed articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven predicted falling temperatures. Some 44 predicted warming, and another 20 were neutral.

Science-type stuff


To clarify a little: I am interested in "Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's by scientists, in scientific journals?". That means articles in scientific journals and reputable books. I am not particularly interested in what appeared in the popular press or on TV and do not intend to discuss it here (but see context), since I do not regard these as reliable sources for scientific information.
Note that many of the oh-there-was-an-ice-age-predicted type articles tend to focus on non-science articles for their sources: newsweek, for example. This is cheating on their part. Newsweek isn't science, of course. If newsweek was quoting peer-reviewed journals, then they should go back to those.

We also need to know what we mean by "imminent". Since the question arises in the context of the greenhouse gas/climate change debate, "imminent" is a timescale comparable to greenhouse-type timescales: ie, the next century or so. See below for my take on long-term predictions.

Comments, clarifications and corrections to this page are welcome see comments or mail [email protected].



If you think you have a new reference that may be interesting, please send it to me. I don't guarantee to check it out immeadiately: you will need to have patience. However, I will list all outstanding references below:

Personally I'm embarrassed about the modern warmers making excuses for the apparent oversights of their colleagues who put a man on the moon. It's sad that the extortionists who pass for scientists these days find the time to discredit the findings of the era of the moon landing greats who paved the way for a-holes who never accomplished a thing besides an international extortion scheme that keeps them in Prius cars while they try to convince themselves that they are doing great things.

 

[Cuyo]

The US put a man on the moon in 1969 and similar technology during the 70's forecasted an ice age. The sad reality today is that government grants finance climate science research and you can bet your ass(ets) that the climate researchers want to keep themselves in Lexus cars and their kids in Ivy League colleges. The judgment of the scientific community regarding global warming is more about political climate than climate.

And once more, you purposely lie. You are a dishonest peice of shit.

Were they really predicting an ice age in the 1970s? - CSMonitor.com

One common trope among climate change deniers is to point out that, in the 1970s, everyone was a panic about global cooling, even to the point of predicting an imminent ice age. If they were so spectacularly wrong back then, the argument goes, why should we be listening to them today?


The argument rests on an equivocation. In the 1970s, "they" refers to a handful of scientists making tentative predictions, and a handful of journalists who repeated those predictions. Today, "they" refers to every single major scientific body in the world. There's just no valid comparison.

In fact, back in the 1970s, more scientists were worried about global warming than its opposite. As USA Today reported last year, Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed 71 peer-reviewed articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven predicted falling temperatures. Some 44 predicted warming, and another 20 were neutral.

Science-type stuff


To clarify a little: I am interested in "Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's by scientists, in scientific journals?". That means articles in scientific journals and reputable books. I am not particularly interested in what appeared in the popular press or on TV and do not intend to discuss it here (but see context), since I do not regard these as reliable sources for scientific information.
Note that many of the oh-there-was-an-ice-age-predicted type articles tend to focus on non-science articles for their sources: newsweek, for example. This is cheating on their part. Newsweek isn't science, of course. If newsweek was quoting peer-reviewed journals, then they should go back to those.

We also need to know what we mean by "imminent". Since the question arises in the context of the greenhouse gas/climate change debate, "imminent" is a timescale comparable to greenhouse-type timescales: ie, the next century or so. See below for my take on long-term predictions.

Comments, clarifications and corrections to this page are welcome see comments or mail [email protected].



If you think you have a new reference that may be interesting, please send it to me. I don't guarantee to check it out immeadiately: you will need to have patience. However, I will list all outstanding references below:

Personally I'm embarrassed about the modern warmers* making excuses for the apparent oversights of their colleagues who put a man on the moon. It's sad that the extortionists who pass for scientists these days find the time to discredit the findings of the era of the moon landing greats who paved the way for a-holes who never accomplished a thing besides an international extortion scheme that keeps them in Prius cars while they try to convince themselves that they are doing great things.

"...embarrassed about the *whole world except American Republicans making excuses for the..."

 

[Bfgrn]

The US put a man on the moon in 1969 and similar technology during the 70's forecasted an ice age. The sad reality today is that government grants finance climate science research and you can bet your ass(ets) that the climate researchers want to keep themselves in Lexus cars and their kids in Ivy League colleges. The judgment of the scientific community regarding global warming is more about political climate than climate.

And once more, you purposely lie. You are a dishonest peice of shit.

Were they really predicting an ice age in the 1970s? - CSMonitor.com

One common trope among climate change deniers is to point out that, in the 1970s, everyone was a panic about global cooling, even to the point of predicting an imminent ice age. If they were so spectacularly wrong back then, the argument goes, why should we be listening to them today?


The argument rests on an equivocation. In the 1970s, "they" refers to a handful of scientists making tentative predictions, and a handful of journalists who repeated those predictions. Today, "they" refers to every single major scientific body in the world. There's just no valid comparison.

In fact, back in the 1970s, more scientists were worried about global warming than its opposite. As USA Today reported last year, Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed 71 peer-reviewed articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven predicted falling temperatures. Some 44 predicted warming, and another 20 were neutral.

Science-type stuff


To clarify a little: I am interested in "Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's by scientists, in scientific journals?". That means articles in scientific journals and reputable books. I am not particularly interested in what appeared in the popular press or on TV and do not intend to discuss it here (but see context), since I do not regard these as reliable sources for scientific information.
Note that many of the oh-there-was-an-ice-age-predicted type articles tend to focus on non-science articles for their sources: newsweek, for example. This is cheating on their part. Newsweek isn't science, of course. If newsweek was quoting peer-reviewed journals, then they should go back to those.

We also need to know what we mean by "imminent". Since the question arises in the context of the greenhouse gas/climate change debate, "imminent" is a timescale comparable to greenhouse-type timescales: ie, the next century or so. See below for my take on long-term predictions.

Comments, clarifications and corrections to this page are welcome see comments or mail [email protected].



If you think you have a new reference that may be interesting, please send it to me. I don't guarantee to check it out immeadiately: you will need to have patience. However, I will list all outstanding references below:

Personally I'm embarrassed about the modern warmers making excuses for the apparent oversights of their colleagues who put a man on the moon. It's sad that the extortionists who pass for scientists these days find the time to discredit the findings of the era of the moon landing greats who paved the way for a-holes who never accomplished a thing besides an international extortion scheme that keeps them in Prius cars while they try to convince themselves that they are doing great things.

Personally I'm embarrassed for these climatologists who spend years going to college, investing years paying back student loans, spending weeks, months and even years living in a tent on some iceberg doing experiments, taking core samples, etc.

What a waste. All these people had to do is spend an hour or two on some BLOG to be a climate expert.

 

[asterism]

PJ Lifestyle » Can We Actually Even Tell if Humans Are Affecting the Climate?

A very interesting op-ed. about how to do science really, with a hat tip to my favourite scientist Dick Feynman.

a quote from when he finally gets around to climate-

As we said, we’re pretty confident that there has been significant warming since the Little Ice Age. The controversy around “climate change” or “global warming” is all about what’s happening; the UN-approved explanation is that humans are releasing gases into the atmosphere that cause less heat to be radiated out into space, and thus causing the average temperature to rise, what’s called the “greenhouse effect.”


Aside: Now, just to try to forestall one of the usual threads of argument, there really is very little question the greenhouse effect actually exists — the natural temperature of a rock in orbit around the Sun at the same distance as the Earth is nearly -40°. So let’s not have the “but there’s no such thing” argument, okay?

If we plan another game of strong inference, what we want is an explanation for the rise in temperature, and particularly for the amount the temperature has gone up. There are a whole lot of different things that might explain it:
•Human-generated greenhouse gases might be doing it.
•Human changes in land use — like lots of asphalt highways, which are pretty black — might be causing the Earth to absorb more heat.
•There might be measurement error — we have to estimate the temperature based on thermometers around the world. Some of these thermometers themselves have had some pretty significant changes in their environments, like having a parking lot built around them, that would make the temperature higher locally. This would increase the measured average temperature, which would make it harder to find a natural explanation.
•There might be variations in the Sun’s output that cause the changes.
•There could be other factors than greenhouse gases that cause the Earth to retain more heat. (One interesting possibility that’s being explored is that more cosmic radiation might be causing cloud cover to change.)

Performing a good experiment to test each of these hypotheses is difficult: we can’t just make a spare Earth with no people, no roads, and a different influx of cosmic rays along with a different Sun maintaining standard conditions. So we have to use other methods.

and the conclusion-

The dark line is the actual measured temperature; the light blue band is the “95 percent confidence interval,” which is to say, that band of 20 to 1 odds. The hypothesis from the models lays down a bet of about 20 to 1 that the temperature will stay inside that light blue band.

The real temperature, however, says otherwise. It’s either already out of that confidence interval or it’s very close to the edge.

Why? We don’t know. Time for some new hypotheses.

someone here was talking about IPCC definitions of likely, very unlikely, etc. anyone care to guess what relationship reality has to climate models for temperature?

I've got a really good "easy excuse" for this discrepancy, and it's something I've been saying for years: these models are designed by people who don't understand software development, nor data analysis, nor statistics.

 

[flacaltenn]

The US put a man on the moon in 1969 and similar technology during the 70's forecasted an ice age. The sad reality today is that government grants finance climate science research and you can bet your ass(ets) that the climate researchers want to keep themselves in Lexus cars and their kids in Ivy League colleges. The judgment of the scientific community regarding global warming is more about political climate than climate.

And once more, you purposely lie. You are a dishonest peice of shit.

Were they really predicting an ice age in the 1970s? - CSMonitor.com

One common trope among climate change deniers is to point out that, in the 1970s, everyone was a panic about global cooling, even to the point of predicting an imminent ice age. If they were so spectacularly wrong back then, the argument goes, why should we be listening to them today?


The argument rests on an equivocation. In the 1970s, "they" refers to a handful of scientists making tentative predictions, and a handful of journalists who repeated those predictions. Today, "they" refers to every single major scientific body in the world. There's just no valid comparison.

In fact, back in the 1970s, more scientists were worried about global warming than its opposite. As USA Today reported last year, Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed 71 peer-reviewed articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven predicted falling temperatures. Some 44 predicted warming, and another 20 were neutral.

Science-type stuff


To clarify a little: I am interested in "Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's by scientists, in scientific journals?". That means articles in scientific journals and reputable books. I am not particularly interested in what appeared in the popular press or on TV and do not intend to discuss it here (but see context), since I do not regard these as reliable sources for scientific information.
Note that many of the oh-there-was-an-ice-age-predicted type articles tend to focus on non-science articles for their sources: newsweek, for example. This is cheating on their part. Newsweek isn't science, of course. If newsweek was quoting peer-reviewed journals, then they should go back to those.

We also need to know what we mean by "imminent". Since the question arises in the context of the greenhouse gas/climate change debate, "imminent" is a timescale comparable to greenhouse-type timescales: ie, the next century or so. See below for my take on long-term predictions.

Comments, clarifications and corrections to this page are welcome see comments or mail [email protected].



If you think you have a new reference that may be interesting, please send it to me. I don't guarantee to check it out immeadiately: you will need to have patience. However, I will list all outstanding references below:

How damn embarrassing GoldiRocks --- and watch your language bud. Calling other posters names that severe for telling the TRUTH --- well it makes me angry..

How damn embarrassing for CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR also... Your "source" of proof that there was NO PUBLIC BLITZ of reporting on Global Cooling in the 70s.. Seems like they don't know their own history...

The following selection of links is from Newsbusters, and was posted in the comments section: (5/27/13 – this list was posted on Newsbusters by PopTech.)


1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)

1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of – TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, May 1978)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

Here's an archived copy of the 1979 article..

New ice age almost upon us?

If you want --- I'll drive by the library tomorrow and verify the other two...

Sorry ass hypocrits...

You're NOT getting this argument GoldiRocks.. And you LOSE everytime you bring it up. Because the argument these posters are making is that the MEDIA and the NEWS of the 60s and 70s were FULL of this crap.. WE KNOW that it doesn't have to based on much science to get propaganda like coverage. The current hype over AGW tells us that. So it doesn't MATTER how many studies it was based on...

You go ahead and ignore this post and RE-USE your silly Christian Science Monitor link. Because that's the way you roll --- ain't it TurdFace?

 

[SSDD]

That lull could change dramatically.. But the models would still be missing some important processes and variables driving the climate.

It isn't that the models are "missing" some important process. The models are based on incorrect assumptions and till they get past the wrong assumption that CO2 is the control knob, they are not going to improve. CO2 is, not even a bit player in the global climate, much less the big kahuna.

 

[IanC]

PJ Lifestyle » Can We Actually Even Tell if Humans Are Affecting the Climate?

A very interesting op-ed. about how to do science really, with a hat tip to my favourite scientist Dick Feynman.

a quote from when he finally gets around to climate-

As we said, we’re pretty confident that there has been significant warming since the Little Ice Age. The controversy around “climate change” or “global warming” is all about what’s happening; the UN-approved explanation is that humans are releasing gases into the atmosphere that cause less heat to be radiated out into space, and thus causing the average temperature to rise, what’s called the “greenhouse effect.”


Aside: Now, just to try to forestall one of the usual threads of argument, there really is very little question the greenhouse effect actually exists — the natural temperature of a rock in orbit around the Sun at the same distance as the Earth is nearly -40°. So let’s not have the “but there’s no such thing” argument, okay?

If we plan another game of strong inference, what we want is an explanation for the rise in temperature, and particularly for the amount the temperature has gone up. There are a whole lot of different things that might explain it:
•Human-generated greenhouse gases might be doing it.
•Human changes in land use — like lots of asphalt highways, which are pretty black — might be causing the Earth to absorb more heat.
•There might be measurement error — we have to estimate the temperature based on thermometers around the world. Some of these thermometers themselves have had some pretty significant changes in their environments, like having a parking lot built around them, that would make the temperature higher locally. This would increase the measured average temperature, which would make it harder to find a natural explanation.
•There might be variations in the Sun’s output that cause the changes.
•There could be other factors than greenhouse gases that cause the Earth to retain more heat. (One interesting possibility that’s being explored is that more cosmic radiation might be causing cloud cover to change.)

Performing a good experiment to test each of these hypotheses is difficult: we can’t just make a spare Earth with no people, no roads, and a different influx of cosmic rays along with a different Sun maintaining standard conditions. So we have to use other methods.

and the conclusion-

The dark line is the actual measured temperature; the light blue band is the “95 percent confidence interval,” which is to say, that band of 20 to 1 odds. The hypothesis from the models lays down a bet of about 20 to 1 that the temperature will stay inside that light blue band.

The real temperature, however, says otherwise. It’s either already out of that confidence interval or it’s very close to the edge.

Why? We don’t know. Time for some new hypotheses.

someone here was talking about IPCC definitions of likely, very unlikely, etc. anyone care to guess what relationship reality has to climate models for temperature?

I've got a really good "easy excuse" for this discrepancy, and it's something I've been saying for years: these models are designed by people who don't understand software development, nor data analysis, nor statistics.

Good point! Although to be fair, the scientists probably never thought these projections were going to be taken so seriously. The graphs should only be used as a tool, as an indication whether most physical processes have been captured. Obviously they are not there yet.

 

[IanC]

The US put a man on the moon in 1969 and similar technology during the 70's forecasted an ice age. The sad reality today is that government grants finance climate science research and you can bet your ass(ets) that the climate researchers want to keep themselves in Lexus cars and their kids in Ivy League colleges. The judgment of the scientific community regarding global warming is more about political climate than climate.

And once more, you purposely lie. You are a dishonest peice of shit.

Were they really predicting an ice age in the 1970s? - CSMonitor.com

One common trope among climate change deniers is to point out that, in the 1970s, everyone was a panic about global cooling, even to the point of predicting an imminent ice age. If they were so spectacularly wrong back then, the argument goes, why should we be listening to them today?


The argument rests on an equivocation. In the 1970s, "they" refers to a handful of scientists making tentative predictions, and a handful of journalists who repeated those predictions. Today, "they" refers to every single major scientific body in the world. There's just no valid comparison.

In fact, back in the 1970s, more scientists were worried about global warming than its opposite. As USA Today reported last year, Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed 71 peer-reviewed articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven predicted falling temperatures. Some 44 predicted warming, and another 20 were neutral.

Science-type stuff


To clarify a little: I am interested in "Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's by scientists, in scientific journals?". That means articles in scientific journals and reputable books. I am not particularly interested in what appeared in the popular press or on TV and do not intend to discuss it here (but see context), since I do not regard these as reliable sources for scientific information.
Note that many of the oh-there-was-an-ice-age-predicted type articles tend to focus on non-science articles for their sources: newsweek, for example. This is cheating on their part. Newsweek isn't science, of course. If newsweek was quoting peer-reviewed journals, then they should go back to those.

We also need to know what we mean by "imminent". Since the question arises in the context of the greenhouse gas/climate change debate, "imminent" is a timescale comparable to greenhouse-type timescales: ie, the next century or so. See below for my take on long-term predictions.

Comments, clarifications and corrections to this page are welcome see comments or mail [email protected].



If you think you have a new reference that may be interesting, please send it to me. I don't guarantee to check it out immeadiately: you will need to have patience. However, I will list all outstanding references below:

I wonder if Old Rocks 2.0 will be posting up 'proof' that the majority of scientists weren't actually predicting disaster from CO2 twenty five years from now.

 

[IanC]

And once more, you purposely lie. You are a dishonest peice of shit.

Were they really predicting an ice age in the 1970s? - CSMonitor.com

One common trope among climate change deniers is to point out that, in the 1970s, everyone was a panic about global cooling, even to the point of predicting an imminent ice age. If they were so spectacularly wrong back then, the argument goes, why should we be listening to them today?


The argument rests on an equivocation. In the 1970s, "they" refers to a handful of scientists making tentative predictions, and a handful of journalists who repeated those predictions. Today, "they" refers to every single major scientific body in the world. There's just no valid comparison.

In fact, back in the 1970s, more scientists were worried about global warming than its opposite. As USA Today reported last year, Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed 71 peer-reviewed articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven predicted falling temperatures. Some 44 predicted warming, and another 20 were neutral.

Science-type stuff


To clarify a little: I am interested in "Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's by scientists, in scientific journals?". That means articles in scientific journals and reputable books. I am not particularly interested in what appeared in the popular press or on TV and do not intend to discuss it here (but see context), since I do not regard these as reliable sources for scientific information.
Note that many of the oh-there-was-an-ice-age-predicted type articles tend to focus on non-science articles for their sources: newsweek, for example. This is cheating on their part. Newsweek isn't science, of course. If newsweek was quoting peer-reviewed journals, then they should go back to those.

We also need to know what we mean by "imminent". Since the question arises in the context of the greenhouse gas/climate change debate, "imminent" is a timescale comparable to greenhouse-type timescales: ie, the next century or so. See below for my take on long-term predictions.

Comments, clarifications and corrections to this page are welcome see comments or mail [email protected].



If you think you have a new reference that may be interesting, please send it to me. I don't guarantee to check it out immeadiately: you will need to have patience. However, I will list all outstanding references below:

Personally I'm embarrassed about the modern warmers making excuses for the apparent oversights of their colleagues who put a man on the moon. It's sad that the extortionists who pass for scientists these days find the time to discredit the findings of the era of the moon landing greats who paved the way for a-holes who never accomplished a thing besides an international extortion scheme that keeps them in Prius cars while they try to convince themselves that they are doing great things.

Personally I'm embarrassed for these climatologists who spend years going to college, investing years paying back student loans, spending weeks, months and even years living in a tent on some iceberg doing experiments, taking core samples, etc.

What a waste. All these people had to do is spend an hour or two on some BLOG to be a climate expert.

I'm embarrassed that the climate science community couldn't police their own work and it took outsiders on blogs to point out their many large and blatant mistakes.

 

[mamooth]

Denialists are fast heading into into birther and 9-11 truther territory. Just like those conspiracies, denialism has made itself unfalsifiable, since any contrary data is instantly handwaved away with cries of "fraud!". Such unfalsifiability moves denialism into the category of pseudoscience.

 

[flacaltenn]

Denialists are fast heading into into birther and 9-11 truther territory. Just like those conspiracies, denialism has made itself unfalsifiable, since any contrary data is instantly handwaved away with cries of "fraud!". Such unfalsifiability moves denialism into the category of pseudoscience.

Nope... Just watching the inevitable unraveling of badly manufactured science consensus.

The fraud and hype and bullying is just noise and distraction..

YOU on the other hand might want to double down on your vaunted IPCC projections of 6degC warming this century.. Might keep the medicine wagon rolling for a few more towns..

 

[IanC]

The US put a man on the moon in 1969 and similar technology during the 70's forecasted an ice age. The sad reality today is that government grants finance climate science research and you can bet your ass(ets) that the climate researchers want to keep themselves in Lexus cars and their kids in Ivy League colleges. The judgment of the scientific community regarding global warming is more about political climate than climate.

And once more, you purposely lie. You are a dishonest peice of shit.

Were they really predicting an ice age in the 1970s? - CSMonitor.com

One common trope among climate change deniers is to point out that, in the 1970s, everyone was a panic about global cooling, even to the point of predicting an imminent ice age. If they were so spectacularly wrong back then, the argument goes, why should we be listening to them today?


The argument rests on an equivocation. In the 1970s, "they" refers to a handful of scientists making tentative predictions, and a handful of journalists who repeated those predictions. Today, "they" refers to every single major scientific body in the world. There's just no valid comparison.

In fact, back in the 1970s, more scientists were worried about global warming than its opposite. As USA Today reported last year, Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed 71 peer-reviewed articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven predicted falling temperatures. Some 44 predicted warming, and another 20 were neutral.

Science-type stuff


To clarify a little: I am interested in "Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's by scientists, in scientific journals?". That means articles in scientific journals and reputable books. I am not particularly interested in what appeared in the popular press or on TV and do not intend to discuss it here (but see context), since I do not regard these as reliable sources for scientific information.
Note that many of the oh-there-was-an-ice-age-predicted type articles tend to focus on non-science articles for their sources: newsweek, for example. This is cheating on their part. Newsweek isn't science, of course. If newsweek was quoting peer-reviewed journals, then they should go back to those.

We also need to know what we mean by "imminent". Since the question arises in the context of the greenhouse gas/climate change debate, "imminent" is a timescale comparable to greenhouse-type timescales: ie, the next century or so. See below for my take on long-term predictions.

Comments, clarifications and corrections to this page are welcome see comments or mail [email protected].



If you think you have a new reference that may be interesting, please send it to me. I don't guarantee to check it out immeadiately: you will need to have patience. However, I will list all outstanding references below:

How damn embarrassing GoldiRocks --- and watch your language bud. Calling other posters names that severe for telling the TRUTH --- well it makes me angry..

How damn embarrassing for CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR also... Your "source" of proof that there was NO PUBLIC BLITZ of reporting on Global Cooling in the 70s.. Seems like they don't know their own history...

The following selection of links is from Newsbusters, and was posted in the comments section: (5/27/13 – this list was posted on Newsbusters by PopTech.)


1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)

1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of – TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, May 1978)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

Here's an archived copy of the 1979 article..

New ice age almost upon us?

If you want --- I'll drive by the library tomorrow and verify the other two...

Sorry ass hypocrits...

You're NOT getting this argument GoldiRocks.. And you LOSE everytime you bring it up. Because the argument these posters are making is that the MEDIA and the NEWS of the 60s and 70s were FULL of this crap.. WE KNOW that it doesn't have to based on much science to get propaganda like coverage. The current hype over AGW tells us that. So it doesn't MATTER how many studies it was based on...

You go ahead and ignore this post and RE-USE your silly Christian Science Monitor link. Because that's the way you roll --- ain't it TurdFace?

hahahahahahahahaha. c'mon flac, why so serious? how can you take peice of shit to heart when you have been called much worse? remember when I called you a moderate? now thems fightin words!