Our cooling world

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Well, if you want to be skeptical about temperature homogenization procedures, and track the dataset, it helps to be aware of these things!
It sure would. If it didn't read like stereo installing instructions in Japanese, it would be awesome.

The fellow who wrote that guest post at WUWT obviously wasn't aware, but knows how to copy numberts into a spreadsheet.
Well you see, here's the gist, you know that, you understand the science.

We deserve better skeptics than that.
We deserve a lot of better things, like a healthy environment, in its entirety.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Absolutely magnificent, the horizontal lines are suggestive of yearning female anticipation of copulation with the masculin multicoloured verticle erectiles, the spacing compells the warming urgency of firery consumation. Absolutley brilliant perspective. Such wallpaper has never before been seen.

I said you were a connoisseur! And more... you're an arteeest! Stand firm; hold your resolve! Never, never... let your appreciation of the arts get in your way of actually commenting on the underlying mundane study/findings, vis-a-vis the busting of the "70s Global Cooling" meme!
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
from an earlier post in a different thread... of course, it really belongs in this thread:

re: "the 70's Global Cooling meme":

an assortment of meta-studies have actually looked at scientific publications during that period in question in an attempt to put to rest this meme. Example: the Peterson et al paper that most authoritatively speaks to what publications existed in the '65-to-79 year' period and what position/findings they held.
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.


Oh lookie here we got another graph so it must be true.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
as for Stephen Schneider, his early position... 50+ years ago... was one he took in relation to his study of atmospheric aerosols and their cooling effect (dust, volcanic ash, industrial aerosols/human-made pollutants)... this was the time of peak U.S. air pollution, before the U.S. Clean Air Act and resulting actions against industrial pollution. It was Schneider's view (based on his single 71 paper) that in the competing positions of warming CO2 and cooling aerosols, aerosols would prove more significant and overall cooling would result. As he worked to refine his research, where some of the related science was in relative infancy (again, 50+ years ago), in a matter of 3 years Schneider reversed himself claiming he had overestimated the amount of aerosols in the air... and underestimated the role of greenhouse gases.
Can't dispute the statement attack the source...typical deflection.....
BTW I was there in those days of paranoia of global cooling paranoia.....the pendulum just swung the other way for the chicken little of the world..........

It sure would. If it didn't read like stereo installing instructions in Japanese, it would be awesome.

Well you see, here's the gist, you know that, you understand the science.

We deserve a lot of better things, like a healthy environment, in its entirety
.
I was there in the '60s & '70s, fighting the good fight for cleaner effluent from industry for cleaner rivers and lakes, an and scrubbing the output of industrial chimneys so the air we al breathe could be cleaner, but they lost me when they switched from cooling to warming and all of a sudden we had to spend money for people like Al gore and Suzuki to get rich...
The science may or may not be right but the hype behind it is remindful of a snake oil salesman......
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,548
12,884
113
Low Earth Orbit
I was there in the '60s & '70s, fighting the good fight for cleaner effluent from industry for cleaner rivers and lakes, an and scrubbing the output of industrial chimneys so the air we al breathe could be cleaner
My dad was a Mech Eng who designed and built scrubbers for pulp, smelters and powerstations and built and designed better combustion systems long before the "green" movement. At that time SO2 and CO we're the only concerns.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Can't dispute the statement attack the source...typical deflection......

what's to dispute? Sorry I burst your red-colour highlighted text bubble... again, I presented that meta-study (of studies) that detailed what positions published scientific papers of that related "70s period" had taken. That study (and others like it) found that the significant majority of published papers of that period held a warming position, followed by a lesser amount holding a neutral position, followed by a very smallish contingent of papers that held a cooling position. Your reference to scientist Stephen Schneider associates to his 1971 paper and his focused research on aerosols... that 1971 Schneider paper is one of the papers catalogued in that meta-study I presented... catalogued as a cooling position paper. Again, what's to dispute?

and yes... I will most certainly attack the source of your article as the author was an outright charlatan... I detailed some your source's crap - try a googly for yourself!

BTW I was there in those days of paranoia of global cooling paranoia.....the pendulum just swung the other way for the chicken little of the world..........I was there in the '60s & '70s, fighting the good fight for cleaner effluent from industry for cleaner rivers and lakes, an and scrubbing the output of industrial chimneys so the air we al breathe could be cleaner, but they lost me when they switched from cooling to warming and all of a sudden we had to spend money for people like Al gore and Suzuki to get rich...

"they switched"??? Who is they? Again, the significant majority of published papers held to a warming position. "Paranoia of global cooling"??? Don't you think you'll embellishing that claim... your grand dramatic effect reach, hey! Anything I've read on the subject attributes whatever coverage the issue got to a smattering of media articles, as in "M-E-D-I-A --- D-R-I-V-E-N". Few of that smallish subset of scientists that held a cooling position... "switched", as you say! But yes, Schneider was one, and I detailed the particulars of that in my prior post.

other than to distract from inconvenient truths of today, what's the purpose of denier's perpetually fixated with a 70's media driven circumstance that's absolutely reached 'meme' categorization today? There is NO THERE, THERE!

"all of a sudden we had to spend money for people like Al gore and Suzuki to get rich..." What money... and whose money has been spent to make, as you say, "Gore/Suzuki" rich? Specifically... what money & whose money?

The science may or may not be right but the hype behind it is remindful of a snake oil salesman......

hype? What's hype to you? Media... political... industry... environmentalists... proponents... denialists... or what? What's the particular hype that's apparenty got you so charged up over it? How does it compare/contrast with your past described 60s-70s environmental engagements?