Ice Age Scare of the 70's

[Crick]

Well, there's nothing for it. My searches were flawed. If I fed in too many characters, the search would simply return "Not Found". Less characters located the quotes in question. Mea culpa. My apologies to SSDD.

 

[SSDD]

Well, there's nothing for it. My searches were flawed. If I fed in too many characters, the search would simply return "Not Found". Less characters located the quotes in question. Mea culpa. My apologies to SSDD.

It is about time...it was your link in the first place...clearly you never read the paper although you represented yourself to have read it and held it up as an example that the ice age scare didn't happen when the paper is clearly promoting the ice age scare. That was the consensus of climate science as it existed at the time...

 

[Crick]

From "Understanding Climatic Changes"

PAST CLIMATIC VARIATIONS— PROJECTION OF FUTURE CLIMATES

INFERENCE OF FUTURE CLIMATES FROM PAST BEHAVIOR

Notwithstanding the limitations of our present insight into the physical basis of climate, we are not altogether powerless to make certain inferences about future climate. Beginning with the most conservative approach, we may use the climatic "normal" as a reference for future planning. In this approach, it is tacitly assumed that the future climate will mirror the recently observed past climate in terms of its statistical properties. Depending on the sensitivity of the climate-related applica- tion (and on the degree to which the climate is subject to change over a period of years following that for which the "normal" is defined), this kind of inference can be anything from highly useful to downright misleading.

Of the various other approaches to the inference of future climate in which the attempt is made to capture more predictive information than is embodied in the "normal," the most popular have been those based on the supposition that climate varies in cycles. Since the develop- ment of modern techniques of time-series analysis, in particular those involving the determination of the variance (or power) spectrum, it has become clear that almost all alleged climatic cycles are either (1) artifacts of statistical sampling, (2) associated with such small fractions of the total variance that they are virtually useless for prediction purposes, or (3) a combination of both. Other approaches, developed to a high degree of sophistication in recent years, include several kinds of nonlinear regression analysis (in which no assumption need be made about the periodic behavior of the climatic time series), which appropriately degenerate to a prediction of the "normal" in cases where the series possess no systematic temporal behavior. The full potential of such approaches is not yet clear but appears promising, at least in certain situations.

 

[SSDD]

From "Understanding Climatic Changes"

PAST CLIMATIC VARIATIONS— PROJECTION OF FUTURE CLIMATES

INFERENCE OF FUTURE CLIMATES FROM PAST BEHAVIOR

Notwithstanding the limitations of our present insight into the physical basis of climate, we are not altogether powerless to make certain inferences about future climate. Beginning with the most conservative approach, we may use the climatic "normal" as a reference for future planning. In this approach, it is tacitly assumed that the future climate will mirror the recently observed past climate in terms of its statistical properties. Depending on the sensitivity of the climate-related applica- tion (and on the degree to which the climate is subject to change over a period of years following that for which the "normal" is defined), this kind of inference can be anything from highly useful to downright misleading.

Of the various other approaches to the inference of future climate in which the attempt is made to capture more predictive information than is embodied in the "normal," the most popular have been those based on the supposition that climate varies in cycles. Since the develop- ment of modern techniques of time-series analysis, in particular those involving the determination of the variance (or power) spectrum, it has become clear that almost all alleged climatic cycles are either (1) artifacts of statistical sampling, (2) associated with such small fractions of the total variance that they are virtually useless for prediction purposes, or (3) a combination of both. Other approaches, developed to a high degree of sophistication in recent years, include several kinds of nonlinear regression analysis (in which no assumption need be made about the periodic behavior of the climatic time series), which appropriately degenerate to a prediction of the "normal" in cases where the series possess no systematic temporal behavior. The full potential of such approaches is not yet clear but appears promising, at least in certain situations.

And yet again, you point out that the paper was onboard with the cooling scare. Tell me what do you think this means?

Beginning with the most conservative approach, we may use the climatic "normal" as a reference for future planning. In this approach, it is tacitly assumed that the future climate will mirror the recently observed past climate in terms of its statistical properties.

Keep in mind that the recently observed past climate was one of cooling....you keep trying to make something out of this paper that it wasn't...it was in agreement with everyone else who was doing climate at the time that the world was entering a long term period of cooling...There is a reason that cooling was mentioned twice as often in the paper as warming and CO2 warming was only discussed as a possible offset to the cooling. Get over it...the ice age scare of the 70's was real and it was voiced by the consensus.

 

[WelfareQueen]

You science is often wrong? Who knew?

 

[Crick]

From "Understanding Climatic Changes"

PAST CLIMATIC VARIATIONS— PROJECTION OF FUTURE CLIMATES

INFERENCE OF FUTURE CLIMATES FROM PAST BEHAVIOR

Notwithstanding the limitations of our present insight into the physical basis of climate, we are not altogether powerless to make certain inferences about future climate. Beginning with the most conservative approach, we may use the climatic "normal" as a reference for future planning. In this approach, it is tacitly assumed that the future climate will mirror the recently observed past climate in terms of its statistical properties. Depending on the sensitivity of the climate-related applica- tion (and on the degree to which the climate is subject to change over a period of years following that for which the "normal" is defined), this kind of inference can be anything from highly useful to downright misleading.

Of the various other approaches to the inference of future climate in which the attempt is made to capture more predictive information than is embodied in the "normal," the most popular have been those based on the supposition that climate varies in cycles. Since the develop- ment of modern techniques of time-series analysis, in particular those involving the determination of the variance (or power) spectrum, it has become clear that almost all alleged climatic cycles are either (1) artifacts of statistical sampling, (2) associated with such small fractions of the total variance that they are virtually useless for prediction purposes, or (3) a combination of both. Other approaches, developed to a high degree of sophistication in recent years, include several kinds of nonlinear regression analysis (in which no assumption need be made about the periodic behavior of the climatic time series), which appropriately degenerate to a prediction of the "normal" in cases where the series possess no systematic temporal behavior. The full potential of such approaches is not yet clear but appears promising, at least in certain situations.

And yet again, you point out that the paper was onboard with the cooling scare. Tell me what do you think this means?

Beginning with the most conservative approach, we may use the climatic "normal" as a reference for future planning. In this approach, it is tacitly assumed that the future climate will mirror the recently observed past climate in terms of its statistical properties.

Keep in mind that the recently observed past climate was one of cooling....you keep trying to make something out of this paper that it wasn't...it was in agreement with everyone else who was doing climate at the time that the world was entering a long term period of cooling...There is a reason that cooling was mentioned twice as often in the paper as warming and CO2 warming was only discussed as a possible offset to the cooling. Get over it...the ice age scare of the 70's was real and it was voiced by the consensus.

That is not what I was pointing out but the matter is irrelevant. With regards to the current AGW discussion, it means absolutely nothing beyond an indication that you have no substantive arguments to make.

 

[SSDD]

That is not what I was pointing out but the matter is irrelevant. With regards to the current AGW discussion, it means absolutely nothing beyond an indication that you have no substantive arguments to make.

It seemed quite relevant for years while you warmers were shouting down and ganging up on anyone who even mentioned the ice age scare of the 70's Now that it seems that it did happen, it becomes irrelevant? That is damned interesting, isn't it?...and it speaks volumes about the character of all you people who swore that it never happened.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD, you did not make the case for the paper supporting the 'coming ice age hypothesis'. For that is not what the paper said. What it said was that with current knowledge, that of the 1970's, they did not have enough information to make an accurate prediction. With that in consideration, they stated there was a finite chance that we might have been starting into a rapid cooling period. Finite as in 1%, maybe 5%. Both are finite chances, long chances, but finite chances.

By 1980, the question was pretty well settled for most scientists, that we were headed for warming. And that is where it stands today, especially considering that we are headed for a very record breaking year this year.

 

[Crick]

Our position - and I believe I can speak for most folks here on this - is that a small number of scientists came to believe we were looking at an approaching ice age but that it was never the majority view of the experts and that even in the 1970s (and well before) many scientists were concerned about global warming from human GHG emissions. That is still our position. Your findings do nothing to refute that position. You have no evidence indicating a consensus worried about an ice age.

It is also our opinion that this is irrelevant. Since Francis Bacon developed the method, the world's scientists, individually and in groups of varying sizes, have gone through a number of faulty ideas. If you think that reason to reject ALL science - and it appears that you do - have fun and let us know how that works out for you... naked in the woods living in a hole in the ground, eating bugs.

 

[IanC]

That is not what I was pointing out but the matter is irrelevant. With regards to the current AGW discussion, it means absolutely nothing beyond an indication that you have no substantive arguments to make.

It seemed quite relevant for years while you warmers were shouting down and ganging up on anyone who even mentioned the ice age scare of the 70's Now that it seems that it did happen, it becomes irrelevant? That is damned interesting, isn't it?...and it speaks volumes about the character of all you people who swore that it never happened.

Yup. Ever notice that any correction toward the skeptic's position, or any blatant error exposed, just doesn't matter to the dedicated warmers? They ignore it first, and after a while they say it was their position all along.

 

[Crick]

What error do you believe this blast from the past has identified in AGW or the work of the IPCC?

 

[percysunshine]

.
The truth is that the earth does not care about your politics, and it is going to do what it damn well pleases.

.

 

[IanC]

What error do you believe this blast from the past has identified in AGW or the work of the IPCC?

It is instructive to see that the warmers believed the Ice Age Scare never happened, even those who lived through it.

What would have been the problem to just acknowledge that there was a controversy with scientists on both sides of the issue?

Instead the warmers went full blown ad hom and denial. Not unlike Himalayagate. The head of the IPCC dripped scorn as he accused the whistleblower of voodoo science. Yet we are told to believe everything the IPCC says without question.

 

[Crick]

What error do you believe this blast from the past has identified in AGW or the work of the IPCC?

It is instructive to see that the warmers believed the Ice Age Scare never happened, even those who lived through it.

If that is what you believe, you're lying to yourself. None of us have ever denied that some few scientists considered the possibility of cooling. What we have repeatedly rejected is the existence of a majority consensus with such opinions and none of you have demonstrated any such thing.

Be that as it may, you say that the value of it had nothing to do with the validity of AGW or of any details of the theory - it's value to you was in letting you think more poorly of us (justified or not).

What would have been the problem to just acknowledge that there was a controversy with scientists on both sides of the issue?

If by "controversy" you mean a difference of opinion involving a significant number of experts (ie, a ~50/50 split), then acknowledging such a thing would have been agreeing to a lie. That would have been the problem.

Instead the warmers went full blown ad hom and denial.

No, we did not.

Not unlike Himalayagate. The head of the IPCC dripped scorn as he accused the whistleblower of voodoo science. Yet we are told to believe everything the IPCC says without question.

You have demonstrated NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - that would cast the slightest doubt on the work of the IPCC.
Ian, I begin to worry about your mental acuity these days.

 

[Kosh]

What error do you believe this blast from the past has identified in AGW or the work of the IPCC?

It is instructive to see that the warmers believed the Ice Age Scare never happened, even those who lived through it.

If that is what you believe, you're lying to yourself. None of us have ever denied that some few scientists considered the possibility of cooling. What we have repeatedly rejected is the existence of a majority consensus with such opinions and none of you have demonstrated any such thing.

Be that as it may, you say that the value of it had nothing to do with the validity of AGW or of any details of the theory - it's value to you was in letting you think more poorly of us (justified or not).

What would have been the problem to just acknowledge that there was a controversy with scientists on both sides of the issue?

If by "controversy" you mean a difference of opinion involving a significant number of experts (ie, a ~50/50 split), then acknowledging such a thing would have been agreeing to a lie. That would have been the problem.

Instead the warmers went full blown ad hom and denial.

No, we did not.

Not unlike Himalayagate. The head of the IPCC dripped scorn as he accused the whistleblower of voodoo science. Yet we are told to believe everything the IPCC says without question.

You have demonstrated NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - that would cast the slightest doubt on the work of the IPCC.
Ian, I begin to worry about your mental acuity these days.

And yet you AGW cult members still can not produce the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate, you know the entire basis behind your religion..

 

[Crick]

And yet you AGW cult members still can not produce the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate, you know the entire basis behind your religion.

1) This comment bears NO relevance to the exchange between Ian and I.

2) On MULTIPLE occasions, YOU, PERSONALLY, have been provided with multiple datasets and the source code for multiple GCMs to play with.

3) But you continue to tell this blatant, well-known LIE.

 

[Kosh]

And yet you AGW cult members still can not produce the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate, you know the entire basis behind your religion.

1) This comment bears NO relevance to the exchange between Ian and I.

2) On MULTIPLE occasions, YOU, PERSONALLY, have been provided with multiple datasets and the source code for multiple GCMs to play with.

3) But you continue to tell this blatant, well-known LIE.

Yes you are on a public message board and there is more relevance to my post than any of the AGW cult postings.

And you claim that you can do something that James Hansen can not do, thus proving who the real lair is.

 

[Crick]

Complete waste. I've put you back on ignore.

 

[Kosh]

Complete waste. I've put you back on ignore.

See how the AGW cult deals with being asked to prove their religion..

They can not do it, then they act like two year olds and stick their fingers in their ears. The far left drones do the same thing and in most cases they are one and the same following the same cult..

So that means no AGW cult member can post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate. Some claim they have and can, but even James Hansen himself can not do it, thus proving those cult members are lairs..

 

[Crick]

I cannot resist

"...thus proving those cult members are lairs..
- poster Kosh, not his first use of the term


LAIR:
noun
1.
a den or resting place of a wild animal:
The cougar retired to its lair.
2.
a secluded or hidden place, especially a secret retreat or base ofoperations; a hideout or hideaway:
a pirate's lair.
3.
British. a place in which to lie or rest; a bed.

verb (used with object)
4.
to place in a lair.
5.
to serve as a lair for.
verb (used without object)
6.
to go to, lie in, or have a lair.