Ocean acidifcation .

[Marc1]

January 11, 2019
Why Climate Change Isn't Science
By Daniel G. Jones
Environmentalists first predicted impending climate disaster in the 1970s, but they didn’t call it global warming. Back then, it was “Global Cooling” that would end life on earth as we knew it. The smog of industrial pollutants was blocking out sunlight so severely, we were warned, that our planet would enter a new ice age unless we acted quickly. Magazine covers featured pictures of snowball earth.

In the eighties, we cleaned up our air, the threatened the ice age did not occur, and thousands of people with time on their hands and seeking purpose in life had discovered that they could make a career out of disaster prophecy. Thus, it was time for a new catastrophe: “Global Warming” Well, maybe not so new. Same villain: us and our machines. Same victim: our delicate planet earth. Same threat: the end of life as we know it. Only the predicted temperature had changed.


Global warming appealed to the press’s appetite for calamity and became an instant hit. The headlines wrote themselves: The poles will melt! The oceans will rise! Lakes and rivers will dry up! Farmlands will become deserts! Millions will starve to death! This was big. Government would have to join the fight.

In the nineties, environmentalists switched their emphasis to “Climate Change” This was a marketing move. Global warming could credibly be blamed for warming, but climate change could be blamed for anything. If hurricanes increase one year, that’s evidence of climate change. If they decrease the next year, well, that’s climate change too. Droughts are caused by climate change, but so are exceptional rains. Warmer winters prove climate change, but so do colder winters. (Claiming that frigid temperatures are caused by global warming would sound ridiculous.) “Climate Change” was disaster gold. It couldn’t be disproved.

Which is exactly why it’s not science. It’s pseudo-science, according to the great philosopher of science, Karl Popper, who pointed out that for any theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. There must be something within the theory itself that can be disproved.

This may be technically true, but what was far more important was that “Climate Change” had already been proven -- by three decades of data, by the computer models of climate experts, and by the overwhelming consensus of scientists.

But those “proofs” aren’t science either. Looking backward, climate change the phenomenon has been a constant feature of our planet. Real climate science tells us that temperatures have been much colder and much hotter in the past. (Canada once had a tropical climate.). For the past ten thousand years, we’ve been living in an interglacial period. These pleasant periods have tended to last for ten to fifteen thousand years, so real climate science predicts that we can enjoy about five thousand more years of temperate weather until the next ice age hits.

The theory of “Climate Change” is entirely different. To claim that it has been proven is to entirely misunderstand how science works. No scientific theory is ever proven. Theories that appear to accurately describe how nature works -- like Darwin’s theory of evolution or Einstein’s relativity -- are assigned the provisional status of not yet disproven, with the understanding that the discovery of a single contrary fact could throw a wrench into the works.

Strictly speaking, “Climate Change” theory isn’t really a scientific theory at all. It doesn’t take into relevant account factors which arguably have a far stronger effect upon climate than CO2, like the sun, ocean currents, and the greatest greenhouse gas of them all, water vapor.

What “Climate Change” is, is a bunch of doomsday predictions. Now, predictions are the critical part of the scientific method. They are what enable a theory to be proven or disproven. If they prove false, they’re also the best way to refute a theory.

Climate change alarmists have made lots of predictions. Perhaps too many, because not one of their predictions whose expiration date has passed has proven correct. Here’s a sampling, courtesy of Anthony Watts at wattsupwiththat.com:

1988, Dr. James Hansen. Asked by author Rob Reiss how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years, Hansen replied: “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change…There will be more police cars…[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”

1990, Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1996, the Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers… The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

October 15, 1990, Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ecological and agricultural catastrophe by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

1990, Actress Meryl Streep: “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away -- earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”

July 26, 1999, The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”

April 1, 2000, Der Spiegel: “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten years’ time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”

Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”

To suggest that the scientific validity of “Climate Change” is debatable is to speak charitably. But there’s never been a debate, not for want of trying. Many skeptics have called for debates. In particular, Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a hereditary peer, journalist, political advisor, inventor, and a skeptic well-versed in the details of climate science, has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to debate. That Al Gore has never replied to these requests is difficult to reconcile with his comments on the CBS "Early Show" (May 31, 2006):

“…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science… Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”

These are not the words of a person who understands science. They are the tactics of a person who realizes he doesn’t have a scientific leg to stand on.

There must be another nonscientific reason for the “Climate Change” agenda. That reason may involve the billions of dollars that proponents have demanded for solving this “problem.”

“Climate Change” is a scam.


https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...U_1O3DyJLGtl58

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Marc1

January 11, 2019
Why Climate Change Isn't Science
By Daniel G. Jones
Environmentalists first predicted impending climate disaster in the 1970s, but they didn’t call it global warming. Back then, it was “Global Cooling” that would end life on earth as we knew it. The smog of industrial pollutants was blocking out sunlight so severely, we were warned, that our planet would enter a new ice age unless we acted quickly. Magazine covers featured pictures of snowball earth...
... “Climate Change” is a scam.
https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...U_1O3DyJLGtl58

Interesting; but absolutely UNTRUE. One doesn't strengthen one's argument by beginning with a falsehood.

“THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS” ~ by Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck (Sept. 2008)
”There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”
Article ☞ https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...2008BAMS2370.1
Abstract ☞ https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs...2008BAMS2370.1

Excerpt: “... 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, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.”

This is a video overview of the history of climate science, with the goal of debunking the idea that in the 1970s, climate scientists were predicting global cooling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S...8FA33&index=37

[Marc1]

Fortunately, I was alive in the seventies and starting my journey at university. Did Climatology 1-2 and 3 and the debate and scaremongering about global cooling was real then.
Not convenient anymore I can see that. Just like "Global warming is frown upon and "climate change" is the go. I wonder what happened to "Catastrophic climate change"?
Probably waiting for a Catastrophe to pin on me and my diesel engine.

By the way, has the Maldivian island finally sunken forever in the depths of the 9m rising ocean? I guess the statue of liberty will take a bit longer, considering it's hight.

[Marc1]

The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth
Guest Blogger / November 19, 2018
[update, reference sheet is now linked at the bottom of post]
By Angus McFarlane,
There was an overwhelming scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headinginto a period of significant cooling. The possibility of anthropogenic warming was relegated to a minority of the papers in the peer-reviewed literature.
Introduction
Whether or not there was a global cooling consensus in the 1970s is important in climate science because, if there were a cooling consensus (which subsequently proved to be wrong) then it would question the legitimacy of consensus in science. In particular, the validity of the 93% consensus on global warming alleged by Cook et al (2103) would be implausible. That is, if consensus climate scientists were wrong in the 1970s then they could be wrong now.

Purpose of Review

It is not the purpose of this review to question the rights or wrongs of the methodology of the 93% consensus. For-and-against arguments are presented in several peer-reviewed papers and non-peer-reviewed weblogs. The purpose of this review is to establish if there were a consensus in the 1970s and, if so, was this consensus cooling or warming?

In their 2008 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, Peterson, Connolley and Fleck (hereinafter PCF-08) state that, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.” This conclusion intrigued me because, when I was growing up in the early 1970s, it was my perception that global cooling dominated the climate narrative. My interest was further piqued by allegations of “cover-up” and “skulduggery” in 2016 in NoTricksZone and Breitbart.

Therefore, I present a review that examines the accuracy of the PCF-08 claim that 1970s global cooling consensus was a myth. This review concentrates on the results from the data in the peer-reviewed climate science literature published in the 1970s, i.e., using similar sources to those used by PCF-08.

Review of PCF-08 Cooling Myth Paper
The case for the 1970s cooling consensus being a myth relies solely on PCF-08. They state that,”…the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent…A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then.” [Emphasis added].

PCF-08 reached their conclusion by conducting a literature review of the electronic archives of the American Meteorological Society, Nature and the scholarly journal archive Journal Storage (JSTOR). The search period was from 1965 to 1979 and the search terms used were “global warming”, “global cooling” and a variety of “other less directly relevant” search terms. Additionally, PCF-08 evaluated references mentioned in the searched papers and references mentioned in various history-of-science documents.

In total, PCF-08 reviewed 71 papers and their survey found 7 cooling papers, 20 neutral papers and 44 warming papers. Their results are shown in their Figure 1.

A cursory examination of Figure 1 indicates that there is a 62% warming consensus if we use all the data and this consensus increases to 86% pro-warming, if we were to ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the 93% consensus). Therefore, the Figure 1 data seems to prove the contention in PCF-08 that 1970s global cooling was a myth.

However, I find it difficult to believe that the 1970s media “selectively misread” the scientific consensus of the day and promoted a non-existent cooling scare. Therefore, I present an alternative to the PCF-08 analysis below.

Methodology of this Review
In this review, I use an identical methodology to PCF-08, i.e., I examine peer-reviewed scientific journals. Non-peer-reviewed newspaper and magazine articles are not used. A significantly larger number of papers are presented in the current review than were used in PCF-08.

The PCF-08 database of articles is used but this is extended to examine more literature. Note that examining all of the scientific literature would have been beyond my resources. However, my literature survey was facilitated by the work of Kenneth Richard in 2016 (hereinafter, KR-16) at NoTricksZone, in which he has assembled a large database of sceptical peer-reviewed literature.

Some people may wish to ignore the KR-16 database as being from a so-called “climate denier” blog. However, almost all of the papers in KR-16 are from peer-reviewed literature and consequently it is a valid database. It is also worth noting that 16 of the papers used in the KR-16 database are also contained in the PCF-08 database.

The combined PCF-08 and KR-16 databases form the benchmark database for the current review. It was intended to significantly extend the benchmark database but, on searching the relevant journals, only 2 additional papers were found and these were added to form the database for this review.

It should be noted that KR-16 states that there were over 285 cooling papers. However, many of these papers were deleted from the current review as not being relevant. For example, several papers were either outside the 1965-1979 reference period or they emphasise the minor role of CO2 but do not consider climate trends.

I agree with PCF-08 that no literature search can be 100% complete. I also agree that a literature search offers a reasonable test of the hypothesis that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s. I reiterate that the resulting database used in this review is significantly larger than that used by PCF-08 and consequently it should offer a more accurate test of the scientific consensus in the 1970s.

Most of the papers in the review database acknowledge the global cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s (typically 0.3 °C global cooling). Therefore, deciding between cooling, neutral or warming was relatively straightforward in most cases; namely did the paper expect the climate regime during the 1940s-1960s period to either to continue from the date that the paper was published, or did it expect a different climate regime in the medium-to-long-term?

Notwithstanding the straightforward test described above, some of the papers make contradictory statements and are thus more difficult to classify. Consequently, their classification can include an element of subjectivity. Fortunately, there are very few papers in this category and consequently an inappropriate classification does not materially affect the overall results.

The test criteria are summarised in Table 1.

Classification Test of Classification of Papers Typical Examples from Papers
Cooling Cooling expected to either continue or initiate Kukla & Kukla (1972)
“…the prognosis is for a long-lasting global cooling more severe than any experienced hitherto by civilized mankind.”

Neutral Either non-committal on future climate change or expects warming or cooling to be equally possible Sellers (1969)
“The major conclusions that removing the arctic ice cap would have less effect on climate than previously suggested, that a decrease of the solar constant by 2-5% would be sufficient, to initiate another ice age, and that man’s increasing industrial activities may eventually lead to the elimination of the ice caps and to a climate about 14C warmer than today…”

Warming Warming expected to either continue or initiate Manabe & Weatherald (1967)
“According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO, content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C.”

Table 1: Summary of Classification System for Papers

The search terms “global cooling” and “global warming” used by PCF-08 are used in this review but they have been expanded to include “cool”, “warm”, “aerosol” and “ice-age” because these, more general terms, return a larger number of relevant papers. Additional search terms such as “deterioration”, “detrimental” and “severe” have also been included. These would fit into the PCF-08 category of “other less directly relevant” search terms.

Several of the papers in the database are concerned about the effects of aerosol cooling and they state that this effect dominates the effect of the newly emerging CO2-warming science. Indeed, a few papers warn of CO2 cooling.

However, PCF-08 do not include any papers that refer to aerosol cooling by a future fleet of supersonic aircraft (SST’s) but several papers in the 1970s assumed an SST fleet of 500 aircraft. This seems incongruous now but, to show that this number of aircraft is not unrealistic; Emirates Airlines currently have a fleet of 244 (non-supersonic) aircraft and 262 more on order. Therefore, I have included papers that refer to the effects of aerosols from supersonic aircraft and other human activities. Of course, supersonic travel was killed-off by the mid-1970s oil crisis.

Furthermore, a number of PCF-08 and KR-16 papers were re-classified (from cooling, neutral or warming) as summarised Table 2.

Reference Original Amended
Sellers (1969) Warming Neutral
Benton (1970) Warming Neutral
Rasool and Schneider (1972) Neutral Cooling
Machta (1972) Warming Neutral
FCSTICAS (1974) Warming Cooling
National Academy of Sciences (1975) Neutral Cooling
Thompson, 1975 Warming Neutral
Shaw (1976) Neutral Cooling
Bryson and Dittberner (1977) Neutral Cooling
Barrett, 1978 Neutral Cooling
Ohring and Adler (1978) Warming Neutral
Stuiver (1978) Warming Neutral
Sagan et al. (1979) Neutral Cooling
Choudhury and Kukla, 1979 Neutral Cooling
a. Amended Classifications to PCF-08
Reference Original Amended
Budyko, 1969 Cooling Warming
Benton (1970) Cooling Neutral
Mitchell, 1970 Cooling Neutral
Mitchell (1971) Cooling Warming
Richmond, 1972 Cooling Neutral
Denton and Karlén, 1973 Cooling Warming
Schneider and Dickinson, 1974 Cooling Neutral
Moran, 1974 Cooling Neutral
Ellsaesser, 1975 Cooling Neutral
Thompson, 1975 Cooling Neutral
Gates, 1976 Cooling Neutral
Zirin et al., 1976 Cooling Neutral
Bach, 1976 Cooling Warming
Norwine, 1977 Cooling Warming
Paterson, 1977 Cooling Neutral
Schneider, 1978 Cooling Warming
b. Amended Classifications to KR-16
Table 2: Amendments to Classification of Papers in Database

Two examples of the amendments to the classification of the papers in the database are explained below:

1. The Benton (1970) paper is classified as “Cooling” in KR-16 but the paper states that, “In the period from 1880 to 1940, the mean temperature of the earth increased about 0.60C; from 1940 to 1970, it decreased by 0.3-0.4°C…The present rate of increase of 0.7 ppm per year [of CO2] would therefore (if extrapolated to 2000 A.D.) result in a warming of about 0.60C – a very substantial change…The drop in the earth’s temperature since 1940 has been paralleled by a substantial increase in natural volcanism. The effect of such volcanic activity is probably greater than the effect of manmade pollutants… it is essential that scientists understand thoroughly the dynamics of climate.” [Emphasis added]. Consequently, this paper is re-classified as neutral in this review. Not the “Cooling” classification in KR-16 and not the “Warming” the classification in PCF-08).

2. The Sagan et al. (1979) paper is classified as “Neutral” in PCF-08 but the paper states that, “Observations show that since 1940 the global mean temperature has declined by -0.2 K…Extrapolation of present rates of change of land use suggests a further decline of -1 K in the global temperature by the end of the next century, at least partially compensating for the increase in global temperature through the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, anticipated from the continued burning of fossil fuels.” [Emphasis added]. Therefore, this paper is re-classified as cooling in this review (conforming to the KR-16 classification).

Results from Review & Discussion
The review database contains a total 190 relevant papers, which is 2.7 times the size of the PCF-08 database. Of the 190 papers in the review database, 162 full papers/books and 25 abstracts were reviewed (abstracts were used when the full papers were either pay-walled or could not be sourced). Furthermore, 4 warming papers from PCF-08 were not reviewed because they could not be sourced. Therefore, the PCF-08 classification was used for these papers in this review.

The results from the review are summarised in Figure 2.

It is evident from Figure 2 that, for the 1965-1979 reference period used by PCF-08, the number of cooling papers significantly outnumbers the number of warming papers. It is also apparent that there are two distinct sub-periods contained within the reference period, namely:

1. The 1968-1976 period when cooling papers greatly outnumber the warming papers (85% to 15%), if we ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103). The 85% to 15% majority is an overwhelming cooling consensus. Additionally, this is probably the period when the 1970s “global cooling consensus” originated because cooling was clearly an established scientific consensus – not the myth that PCF-08 contend.

2. The 1977-1979 period when warming papers slightly outnumber the cooling papers (52% to 48%) – a warming majority but not a consensus.

The following observations are also worth noting from Figure 2 for the 1965-1979 reference period:

1. Of the 190 papers in the database, the respective number of papers are 86 cooling, 58 neutral and 46 warming. In percentage terms, this equates to 45% cooling papers, 31% neutral papers and 24% warming papers, if we use all of the data.

2. The cooling consensus increases to 65% compared with 35% warming – a considerable cooling consensus, if we ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103).

3. The total number of cooling papers is always greater than or equal to the number of warming papers throughout the entire reference period.

Although not presented in Figure 2, it is worth noting that 30 papers refer to the possibility of a New Ice-Age or the return to the “Little Ace-Age” (although they sometimes they used the term “Climate Catastrophic Cooling”). Timescales for the New Ice Age vary from a few decades, through a century or two, to several millennia. The 30 “New Ice Age” papers are not insignificant when compared with the 46 warming papers.

Conclusions
A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.

It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.

It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely, “selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling.

I find it very surprising that PCF-08 only uncovered 7 cooling papers and did not uncover the 86 cooling papers in major scientific journals, such as, Journal of American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, Quaternary Research and similar scientific papers that they reviewed. For example, PCF-08 only found 1 paper in Quaternary Research, namely the warming paper by Mitchell (1976), however, this review found 19 additional papers in that journal, comprising 15 cooling, 3 neutral and 1 warming.

I can only suggest that the authors of PCF-08 concentrated on finding warming papers instead of conducting the impartial “rigorous literature review” that they profess.

If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.

Afterword
I reiterate that no literature survey can be 100% complete. Therefore, if you uncover additional references then please send them to me in the comments. It would make this review much better if we could significantly increase the number of relevant references.

Additionally, if you disagree with the classification of some of the references then please let me know why you disagree and I will consider appropriate amendments. Your comments on classification would certainly increase the veracity of the review by providing an independent assessment of my classifications.

References
The references used in this review and their classification are included in the spreadsheet here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-conte...Consensus.xlsx

[Marc1]

And in case it was too long or too boring to read, here are the conclusions:

Conclusions
A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.

It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.

It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely, “selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling.

I find it very surprising that PCF-08 only uncovered 7 cooling papers and did not uncover the 86 cooling papers in major scientific journals, such as, Journal of American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, Quaternary Research and similar scientific papers that they reviewed. For example, PCF-08 only found 1 paper in Quaternary Research, namely the warming paper by Mitchell (1976), however, this review found 19 additional papers in that journal, comprising 15 cooling, 3 neutral and 1 warming.

I can only suggest that the authors of PCF-08 concentrated on finding warming papers instead of conducting the impartial “rigorous literature review” that they profess.

If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth busting is a difficult trade better left to TV presenters and assorted buffoons who make money by attracting attention and drawing applause, irrespective of the accuracy or otherwise of their "busting".
Science on the other hand ...
But who is interested in science ? Too boring ...

And that is the danger with cut and paste. You look for things you don't know about and select according to what you want to be true ...
If the only tool you have is a hammer ... everything looks like a nail.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

here ya go one last time

Way back machine
Wayback Machine

Notice the NASA website in the address .

And the new version
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/g...ture/graph.png

Also notice the NASA web address .

Just admit you are wrong . Even just to yourself it will help you to heal from the MMGWC .

I haven't been following your and JD's discussion very closely. What is the point you are trying to make about these two NASA charts?

[lancelot9898]

Originally Posted by Marc1

January 11, 2019
Why Climate Change Isn't Science
By Daniel G. Jones
]

Thanks for posting this Marc1.

[AllenRbrts]

We have sort of come full circle.
What started this thread was a link to a post on nottickszone and now this lasted post is back to referencing “data” on the same website. How many people on this thread actually read the original paper on ocean acidification referenced in the notrickzone article? Might be very instructive if you did. The original paper has little resemblance to the commentary on the blog.

Now this last post. The wattsupwiththat post was based on a notrickzone blog post referencing hundreds of supposed cooling articles from the 70s. I’m certainly not going to spend time looking at hundreds of articles, but I thought I would pick one at sort of random. I pick one labeled as extreme cooling and pulled up the article. It was about a mathematical model of scattering in the atmosphere due to particulates having the potential for cooling. Here the pinch line from the article “These computations show that substantial depletions of irradiance can result from moderate to heavy particulate loadings, and that an increase in man-made particulate emissions by a factor of 50 or more could give rise to a general cooling of serious magnitude.”

Notice the factor of 50x more particulates required for more cooling. I don’t think any climate scientists today would disagree.

My conclusion is any information from notrickzone should be considered just false on its face.

[SailOar]

Ocean acidification makes some marine snails less able to resist predators

...The study, published in early May 2019 in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series, involved placing green crabs in containers with three different species of marine snails, and exposing the animals to seawater at different temperatures and levels of acidity. The idea was to simulate ocean conditions expected over the next 50 to 100 years. ...

The snails used in these experiments have shells made of two different minerals–calcite and aragonite. Two of the snail species used in the experiment had thick shells made of calcite, while the third species had thinner shells made of aragonite. Aragonite is stronger in proportion to its weight but is more sensitive to ocean acidity, and will dissolve more quickly than calcite under expected future ocean conditions.....

On the other hand, the shells of snails with thin, aragonite shells actually became thinner over time, due to the chemistry of the seawater. This suggests that snails with aragonite shells would be much more likely to be eaten by predatory crabs as the ocean becomes more acidic.

Unfortunately for the snails, the predatory crabs did not seem to be affected by changes in ocean acidity. Green crabs are an invasive species on the US West Coast, and the expansion of their range could have significant effects on native snails. This experiment showed that the effects of these crabs will vary depending on what these snails’ shells are made of....

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Yes, you clearly excel at posting mostly alarmist articles & studies, and you're usually able to do so without much thinking or analysis of your own. We have several posters like you who have similar styles, but I understand how you all need to stay efficient given the large number of other sites that are eagerly awaiting your expert information. But your timing is good notwithstanding, so that's a plus.

As for originality, I'm afraid your comment above still keeps you in runner-up status, possibly even allowing L-E to open up a gap. Keep trying though. I know you will.

I have no desire for originality. Basically, I'm a very dull and uneducated person.

And yes, I totally understand your extreme dislike of science that challenges your desire to deny AGW.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Marc1

And in case it was too long or too boring to read, here are the conclusions:

Conclusions
A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.

It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.

You're right. It was long, boring, and doesn't match my recollections of the 70s (uni in late 70s).

We can leave it to Exile to school you on "consensus".

[atlroofman]

Originally Posted by mjscottinnc

I just looked outside and OMG the weather is changing, I'm going to stay inside where I have a calculable carbon footprint and I can remind myself to keep breathing.



Woooo, that was a close one!

Hahahahahahaha Great one.

[GordMay]

The reality is that scientists in the 1970s were just beginning to understand how climate change and aerosol pollution might impact global temperatures. Add in the media-hype cycle (which was true then as it is now) we had some coverage that turned out to be wrong. But thanks to the Internet, those stories stay undead, recycled by notorious climate skeptics.

In the late 1960s & early 1970s, scientists had not yet determined the relative impacts of two factors on climate: greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, and aerosols & particulates. Some papers in the early part of the 70s (& earlier) predicted that increasing aerosol emissions could lower temperatures enough to trigger an ice age, but these conclusions were disputed.
By the late 1970s, research had established that the warming associated with greenhouse gases was dominant over the cooling effect of aerosols.

A 1979 report [1] from the National Research Council, warned about the dangers of continuing to emit carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels and associated warming.
“A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late,” the report noted.
The Bulletin of the AMS paper, previously cited by me [2] concluded:
“Clearly, if a national report in the 1970s advocates urgent action to address global warming, then the scientific consensus of the 1970s was not global cooling.”
“Carbon Dioxide and Climate - A Scientific Assessment (1979)”
[1] ➥ https://www.nap.edu/read/12181/chapter/1

“THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS” ~ by Thomas C. Peterson et al.
[2] ➥ https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...2008BAMS2370.1

Some history:

“Earth is Cooling … No It’s Warming” ➥ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/fe...mperature2.php

“Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s"
➥ https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz5vp3me9ia

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by newhaul

natural lightening just like what has been causing fires in the arctic during the summers for eaons

What is “lightening” [sp]???

What is an “Eaon” [sp]????

Hard to make a convincing scientific or technical argument appear credible using those ‘words’.

[GordMay]

In November 1959, Edward Teller addressed a gathering of the American Petroleum Institute’s “Energy and Man” conference, calling attendees attention to the link between fossil fuels and rising atmospheric levels of CO2, as well as the resulting “greenhouse effect” from rising CO2:

“Ladies and gentlemen, I am to talk to you about energy in the future. I will start by telling you why I believe that the energy resources of the past must be supplemented. First of all, these energy resources will run short as we use more and more of the fossil fuels. But I would […] like to mention another reason why we probably have to look for additional fuel supplies. And this, strangely, is the question of contaminating the atmosphere. [….] Whenever you burn conventional fuel, you create carbon dioxide. [….] The carbon dioxide is invisible, it is transparent, you can’t smell it, it is not dangerous to health, so why should one worry about it?

“Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [….] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.”

After his speech, Teller was asked to “summarize briefly the danger from increased carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere in this century.” He answered this way:

“At present the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 2 per cent over normal. By 1970, it will be perhaps 4 per cent, by 1980, 8 per cent, by 1990, 16 per cent [about 360 parts per million, by Teller’s accounting], if we keep on with our exponential rise in the use of purely conventional fuels. By that time, there will be a serious additional impediment for the radiation leaving the earth. Our planet will get a little warmer. It is hard to say whether it will be 2 degrees Fahrenheit or only one or 5.

“But when the temperature does rise by a few degrees over the whole globe, there is a possibility that the icecaps will start melting and the level of the oceans will begin to rise. Well, I don’t know whether they will cover the Empire State Building or not, but anyone can calculate it by looking at the map and noting that the icecaps over Greenland and over Antarctica are perhaps five thousand feet thick.”

Disclosure: Teller spent most of his speech extolling the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and begging the public to allow nuclear research to continue until a truly clean fusion energy could be developed.

Teller, E. Energy patterns of the future. In Energy and Man: A Symposium
➥ https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Man-Sy.../dp/1258113406