Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

...and all of you warmers like to say that it emits radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth, but don't seem to be able to provide a measurement of a discrete band of radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface unless you use an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...

You have stated that back radiation cannot move to warmer earth many times, but it is a circular argument and contradicts other areas of physic.

You assume your radiation restriction and then say you can only measure radiation with a colder instrument because of the very assumption you are making. It's circular. When back radiation is measured from a cooled instrument you simply brush that off and imply it would disappear if the instrument was not cooled for no given reason.

The idea of radiation exchange is perfectly reasonable and accepted by the entire body of science because it does not contradict other areas of physics and physical measurements.


.

So which law of physics states that energy moves spontaneously from cool to warm? In order to contradict a law of physics, there must be one that says as much. We both know that there is no such law stating any such thing...once again...you are quite wrong and lose again.

One does not need a cooled instrument to measure discrete frequencies of energy moving from warm objects to cooler objects..even if there is a mere fraction of a degree of difference between the temperature of the warmer object and the cooler object..

You can not measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object..you can, however measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler instrument. That is the simple fact of it.

And while you may believe the idea of spontaneous energy exchange between objects of different temperatures is perfect reasonable...you can provide no observed, measured examples of any such movement.

In the end, as in the beginning, all you have is a belief in unobservable, ummeasureable, untestable models.

 

[Wuwei]

So which law of physics states that energy moves spontaneously from cool to warm? In order to contradict a law of physics, there must be one that says as much. We both know that there is no such law stating any such thing...once again...you are quite wrong and lose again.

No law forbids radiation exchange by black bodies.

One does not need a cooled instrument to measure discrete frequencies of energy moving from warm objects to cooler objects..even if there is a mere fraction of a degree of difference between the temperature of the warmer object and the cooler object..

You can not measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object..you can, however measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler instrument. That is the simple fact of it.

Cooled instruments are used to enhance the SNR.

And while you may believe the idea of spontaneous energy exchange between objects of different temperatures is perfect reasonable...you can provide no observed, measured examples of any such movement.

In the end, as in the beginning, all you have is a belief in unobservable, ummeasureable, untestable models.

If spontaneous energy exchange does not happen you violate Plank's law, and entropy, among other physical laws. Strict one-way radiation is unobservable and unviable.


.

 

[Muhammed]

Sorry dipshits, we do not enrich greenhouses with carbon dioxide to warm it's climate.

 

[cnm]

Sorry dipshits, we do not enrich greenhouses with carbon dioxide to warm it's climate.

That's the spirit. Kudos to you.

 

[SSDD]

No law forbids radiation exchange by black bodies.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object

Which part of that do you think does not forbid spontaneous energy exchange between radiators of different temperatures...We have been through it all before in all its tedium...you keep denying reality in favor of your beliefs...

And since this thread is specifically about the greenhouse hypothesis...there is Planck's law. It simply is not possible for a body to be warmed by its own radiation because its own radiation does not include the higher frequency amplitudes at every frequency required to cause a higher temperature...so says Planck's law.

By that law, it is not possible for gases to act as a blanket warming the earth because it has no mechanism to increase the frequency amplitudes at every frequency required to cause a higher temperature.

Then there is the completely wrong assumption of the greenhouse hypothesis that energy fluxes are additive. They are not..Heat fluxes are clearly observed and measured in warming and cooling curves to be functions of the average of the present and maximum temperature at any given point in time.

Cooled instruments are used to enhance the SNR.

No...cooled instruments are the only way to measure energy moving from a warmer body...but feel free to show me a measurement of a discrete frequency of energy moving from a cooler body to a warmer body...even one that is not as clear as with a cooled instrument...show me a degraded measurement of a discrete frequency of energy moving from a cool body to a warmer body... Of course you won't be able to because energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm...

We have been through it all before..you keep recycling the same old failed arguments...claiming the same old physical impossibilities...and most importantly, failing to show any measurement of the energy movement you claim exists.

If spontaneous energy exchange does not happen you violate Plank's law, and entropy, among other physical laws. Strict one-way radiation is unobservable and unviable.

Show me equations that suggest a two way energy exchange version of Planck's law. Again...You won't be able to show any such equations because there are none...been through it all before...you lost then and you loose now...you can show no physical law that states that predicts spontaneous two way energy exchange and you can show no measurement of a discrete frequency of radiation moving spontaneously from a cooler body to a warmer body...

In the end, as in the beginning, you have nothing but belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and such models are not a rational argument when the subject of the argument is something as imminently observable, and measurable as the atmosphere and energy movement through it.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry dipshits, we do not enrich greenhouses with carbon dioxide to warm it's climate.

That's the spirit. Kudos to you.

Do you ever have a defense of your position, or are indefensible one liners all you are capable of?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No law forbids radiation exchange by black bodies.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object

Which part of that do you think does not forbid spontaneous energy exchange between radiators of different temperatures...We have been through it all before in all its tedium...you keep denying reality in favor of your beliefs...

And since this thread is specifically about the greenhouse hypothesis...there is Planck's law. It simply is not possible for a body to be warmed by its own radiation because its own radiation does not include the higher frequency amplitudes at every frequency required to cause a higher temperature...so says Planck's law.

By that law, it is not possible for gases to act as a blanket warming the earth because it has no mechanism to increase the frequency amplitudes at every frequency required to cause a higher temperature.

Then there is the completely wrong assumption of the greenhouse hypothesis that energy fluxes are additive. They are not..Heat fluxes are clearly observed and measured in warming and cooling curves to be functions of the average of the present and maximum temperature at any given point in time.

Cooled instruments are used to enhance the SNR.

No...cooled instruments are the only way to measure energy moving from a warmer body...but feel free to show me a measurement of a discrete frequency of energy moving from a cooler body to a warmer body...even one that is not as clear as with a cooled instrument...show me a degraded measurement of a discrete frequency of energy moving from a cool body to a warmer body... Of course you won't be able to because energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm...

We have been through it all before..you keep recycling the same old failed arguments...claiming the same old physical impossibilities...and most importantly, failing to show any measurement of the energy movement you claim exists.

If spontaneous energy exchange does not happen you violate Plank's law, and entropy, among other physical laws. Strict one-way radiation is unobservable and unviable.

Show me equations that suggest a two way energy exchange version of Planck's law. Again...You won't be able to show any such equations because there are none...been through it all before...you lost then and you loose now...you can show no physical law that states that predicts spontaneous two way energy exchange and you can show no measurement of a discrete frequency of radiation moving spontaneously from a cooler body to a warmer body...

In the end, as in the beginning, you have nothing but belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and such models are not a rational argument when the subject of the argument is something as imminently observable, and measurable as the atmosphere and energy movement through it.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object

And yet, you still won't post a source that agrees with your one-way only flow of radiation.
Come on Galileo.

 

[Wuwei]

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object

I agree.

And since this thread is specifically about the greenhouse hypothesis...there is Planck's law. It simply is not possible for a body to be warmed by its own radiation because its own radiation does not include the higher frequency amplitudes at every frequency required to cause a higher temperature...so says Planck's law.

By that law, it is not possible for gases to act as a blanket warming the earth because it has no mechanism to increase the frequency amplitudes at every frequency required to cause a higher temperature.

Plank's law doesn't say that.

Then there is the completely wrong assumption of the greenhouse hypothesis that energy fluxes are additive. They are not.

The energy from incoherent radiation sources are additive. Look it up.

No...cooled instruments are the only way to measure energy moving from a warmer body...but feel free to show me a measurement of a discrete frequency of energy moving from a cooler body to a warmer body...even one that is not as clear as with a cooled instrument...show me a degraded measurement of a discrete frequency of energy moving from a cool body to a warmer body... Of course you won't be able to because energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm...

We have been through it all before..you keep recycling the same old failed arguments...claiming the same old physical impossibilities...and most importantly, failing to show any measurement of the energy movement you claim exists.

Yes we have been through this before. The 2.7 K microwave background radiation has been observed to penetrate the much warmer atmosphere of earth. That is the claim of science. I'm only reporting it to you. So you are saying science has a failed argument, but you are wrong.

Show me equations that suggest a two way energy exchange version of Planck's law. Again...You won't be able to show any such equations because there are none...been through it all before...you lost then and you loose now...you can show no physical law that states that predicts spontaneous two way energy exchange and you can show no measurement of a discrete frequency of radiation moving spontaneously from a cooler body to a warmer body...

In the end, as in the beginning, you have nothing but belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and such models are not a rational argument when the subject of the argument is something as imminently observable, and measurable as the atmosphere and energy movement through it.

The SB equation is the basis for deriving a form that shows emission and absorption occur concurrently. All of science accepts that. But you don't. You call it opinion.

We all know your opinion, which violates several laws of physics. We went through all that before.


.

 

[SSDD]

Plank's law doesn't say that.

Of course it does...let me guess...because a grammar school level explanation is not provided in crayon for you, then in your mind, it is not there... Look for what results in a temperature decrease, then reverse it if you want to see what results in a temperature increase....typical...

Planck’s radiation law, a mathematical relationship formulated in 1900 by German physicist Max Planck to explain the spectral-energy distribution of radiation emitted by a blackbody (a hypothetical body that completely absorbs all radiant energy falling upon it, reaches some equilibrium temperature, and then reemits that energy as quickly as it absorbs it). Planck assumed that the sources of radiation are atoms in a state of oscillation and that the vibrational energy of each oscillator may have any of a series of discrete values but never any value between. Planck further assumed that when an oscillator changes from a state of energy E1 to a state of lower energy E2, the discrete amount of energy E1 − E2, or quantum of radiation, is equal to the product of the frequency of the radiation, symbolized by the Greek letter ν and a constant h, now called Planck’s constant, that he determined from blackbody radiation data; i.e., E1 − E2 = hν.

The energy from incoherent radiation sources are additive. Look it up.

Only if the incoherent source is in fact an energy source...energy from a single source being absorbed and emitted additive...if you set a piece of paper in a window sill exposed to the sun, and then turn a heat lamp onto the paper as well, the additional energy coming from the lamp would be additive...energy the paper is emitting can never be an additive used to warm it further.....You either don't have a clue, or you are willing to just make up any manner of bullshit in an attempt to justify your position...

Yes we have been through this before. The 2.7 K microwave background radiation has been observed to penetrate the much warmer atmosphere of earth. That is the claim of science. I'm only reporting it to you. So you are saying science has a failed argument, but you are wrong.

Unfortunate that you can't seem to understand what a resonant radio frequency is...of course, you can't grasp what Planck's law is, and think that a radiators own radiation can be added to it in order to warm it up...you clearly just don't have a clue..

The SB equation is the basis for deriving a form that shows emission and absorption occur concurrently. All of science accepts that. But you don't. You call it opinion.

No it isn't and the SB law suggests nothing of the sort...the SB law is speaking to a theoretical perfect black body in a perfect vacuum...exactly what would it be exchanging energy with? Once more...just making shit up as you go..

We all know your opinion, which violates several laws of physics. We went through all that before.

I keep asking which laws and you don't seem to be able to come up with one...and the ones that you do mention clearly don't support your claims.. Again...just making shit up as you go...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Plank's law doesn't say that.

Of course it does...let me guess...because a grammar school level explanation is not provided in crayon for you, then in your mind, it is not there... Look for what results in a temperature decrease, then reverse it if you want to see what results in a temperature increase....typical...

Planck’s radiation law, a mathematical relationship formulated in 1900 by German physicist Max Planck to explain the spectral-energy distribution of radiation emitted by a blackbody (a hypothetical body that completely absorbs all radiant energy falling upon it, reaches some equilibrium temperature, and then reemits that energy as quickly as it absorbs it). Planck assumed that the sources of radiation are atoms in a state of oscillation and that the vibrational energy of each oscillator may have any of a series of discrete values but never any value between. Planck further assumed that when an oscillator changes from a state of energy E1 to a state of lower energy E2, the discrete amount of energy E1 − E2, or quantum of radiation, is equal to the product of the frequency of the radiation, symbolized by the Greek letter ν and a constant h, now called Planck’s constant, that he determined from blackbody radiation data; i.e., E1 − E2 = hν.

The energy from incoherent radiation sources are additive. Look it up.

Only if the incoherent source is in fact an energy source...energy from a single source being absorbed and emitted additive...if you set a piece of paper in a window sill exposed to the sun, and then turn a heat lamp onto the paper as well, the additional energy coming from the lamp would be additive...energy the paper is emitting can never be an additive used to warm it further.....You either don't have a clue, or you are willing to just make up any manner of bullshit in an attempt to justify your position...

Yes we have been through this before. The 2.7 K microwave background radiation has been observed to penetrate the much warmer atmosphere of earth. That is the claim of science. I'm only reporting it to you. So you are saying science has a failed argument, but you are wrong.

Unfortunate that you can't seem to understand what a resonant radio frequency is...of course, you can't grasp what Planck's law is, and think that a radiators own radiation can be added to it in order to warm it up...you clearly just don't have a clue..

The SB equation is the basis for deriving a form that shows emission and absorption occur concurrently. All of science accepts that. But you don't. You call it opinion.

No it isn't and the SB law suggests nothing of the sort...the SB law is speaking to a theoretical perfect black body in a perfect vacuum...exactly what would it be exchanging energy with? Once more...just making shit up as you go..

We all know your opinion, which violates several laws of physics. We went through all that before.

I keep asking which laws and you don't seem to be able to come up with one...and the ones that you do mention clearly don't support your claims.. Again...just making shit up as you go...

Thanks!

a blackbody (a hypothetical body that completely absorbs all radiant energy falling upon it, reaches some equilibrium temperature, and then reemits that energy as quickly as it absorbs it).

Reemits as quickly as it absorbs?

Sounds like we can add Planck's radiation law to the list of modern physics that disagrees with you.

 

[Wuwei]

Reemits as quickly as it absorbs?

He shot himself in the foot again.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course it does...let me guess...because a grammar school level explanation is not provided in crayon for you, then in your mind, it is not there... Look for what results in a temperature decrease, then reverse it if you want to see what results in a temperature increase....typical...

Planck’s radiation law, a mathematical relationship formulated in 1900 by German physicist Max Planck to explain the spectral-energy distribution of radiation emitted by a blackbody (a hypothetical body that completely absorbs all radiant energy falling upon it, reaches some equilibrium temperature, and then reemits that energy as quickly as it absorbs it). Planck assumed that the sources of radiation are atoms in a state of oscillation and that the vibrational energy of each oscillator may have any of a series of discrete values but never any value between. Planck further assumed that when an oscillator changes from a state of energy E1 to a state of lower energy E2, the discrete amount of energy E1 − E2, or quantum of radiation, is equal to the product of the frequency of the radiation, symbolized by the Greek letter ν and a constant h, now called Planck’s constant, that he determined from blackbody radiation data; i.e., E1 − E2 = hν

Plank is referring to a plethora of atoms with a plethora of discrete energy levels. The sentence you bold faced is saying that the atoms are continually changing energy levels and he derived a relation between a drop in a single molecules energy and the output frequency of the photon. You do not understand what he is saying in the bold face sentence. Look up ultraviolet catastrophe. You cannot get the complete picture of what Planck did from Encyclopedia Britannica!!!

Only if the incoherent source is in fact an energy source...energy from a single source being absorbed and emitted additive...if you set a piece of paper in a window sill exposed to the sun, and then turn a heat lamp onto the paper as well, the additional energy coming from the lamp would be additive...energy the paper is emitting can never be an additive used to warm it further.....You either don't have a clue, or you are willing to just make up any manner of bullshit in an attempt to justify your position.

Nobody that understands just a little about science has said that anything can warm itself with its own radiation. Absolutely nobody.

Unfortunate that you can't seem to understand what a resonant radio frequency is...of course, you can't grasp what Planck's law is, and think that a radiators own radiation can be added to it in order to warm it up...you clearly just don't have a clue..

You are lying again and you know it.

No it isn't and the SB law suggests nothing of the sort...the SB law is speaking to a theoretical perfect black body in a perfect vacuum...exactly what would it be exchanging energy with? Once more...just making shit up as you go..

You are trashing 150 years of science and blaming it on me??!!

I keep asking which laws and you don't seem to be able to come up with one...and the ones that you do mention clearly don't support your claims.. Again...just making shit up as you go.

You are lying again. Absolutely lying.


.

 

[toobfreak]

There are changes unquestionably afoot. Problem is that such changes have always been going on long before man was around! To what degree man is playing a part can be debated, history shows that 99% of the time, we get it wrong anyway and like Flacc, I'm loathe to think it is the end of the world. Just change.

When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE; what makes them more right now? Unquestionably there will be another ice age sometime in the geologic future, maybe a hundred years or 50,000 years we don't know. Meantime, I'm in the Mid-Atlantic and our winters have been pretty mild for a few years. Here it is mid-May and all of April and May so far has almost entirely been COOL! 50s and 60s! Today's high is 64°. If this is catastrophic runaway global warming, I'll take it.

 

[cnm]

When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE;

Yeah yeah. That's good denial too.

The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I

 

[Wuwei]

When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE;

Yeah yeah. That's good denial too.

The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I

Interesting. I traced that back to a government site which gives a larger more readable graph about halfway down the page on the right margin.
National Climate Assessment


.

 

[Billy_Bob]

When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE;

Yeah yeah. That's good denial too.

The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I

Interesting. I traced that back to a government site which gives a larger more readable graph about halfway down the page on the right margin.
National Climate Assessment


.

The NCA is a Karl Et Al pile of crap. It is based on faulty modeling and wild ass assumptions.

 

[toobfreak]

When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE;

Yeah yeah. That's good denial too.

Oddly enough, despite what your hack sites CLAIM, I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s and that is all we heard on magazines like Time, National Geographic, on television, newspapers, etc. I cannot ONCE remember ever hearing anyone claim that the Earth was going to turn into a hot, barren desert. But what would I know having LIVED it. It wasn't until MANY years later that we started hearing of global warming.

 

[cnm]

When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE;

Yeah yeah. That's good denial too.

Oddly enough, despite what your hack sites CLAIM, I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s and that is all we heard on magazines like Time, National Geographic, on television, newspapers, etc. I cannot ONCE remember ever hearing anyone claim that the Earth was going to turn into a hot, barren desert. But what would I know having LIVED it. It wasn't until MANY years later that we started hearing of global warming.

Excellent denial. Kudos.

Btw, is this from a 'hack site'?

https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/report/files/images/web-small/Figure-18-small.jpg

 

[toobfreak]

When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE;

Yeah yeah. That's good denial too.

Oddly enough, despite what your hack sites CLAIM, I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s and that is all we heard on magazines like Time, National Geographic, on television, newspapers, etc. I cannot ONCE remember ever hearing anyone claim that the Earth was going to turn into a hot, barren desert. But what would I know having LIVED it. It wasn't until MANY years later that we started hearing of global warming.

Excellent denial. Kudos.

Btw, is this from a 'hack site'?

https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/report/files/images/web-small/Figure-18-small.jpg

Yep. No data to say WHO compiled it, HOW they did it, or that there is any credibility to their claims, especially considering their name suggests a bias. I can create a chart that looks better and say the OPPOSITE. I lived that period. No denial possible. All we heard about was the coming ice age. Sorry if that FACT doesn't comport with your desires.

 

[Sunsettommy]

When I was a kid they were saying the exact OPPOSITE;

Yeah yeah. That's good denial too.

The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I

The same lie you so easily swallowed from SS, since there were plenty of evidence that from the 1940's to the 1970's of a COOLING world, a world that saw increasing snow and ice, a world of declining temperatures.

285 Papers 70s Cooling 1

Examples:

Stewart and Glantz, 1985

“The conclusions of the NDU study might have been predicted from a knowledge of the prevailing ‘spirit of the times’ (i.e., the prevailing mood in the science community) when the first part was conducted. This was an interesting time in recent history of climate studies. One could effectively argue that in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2°C cooling. By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth’s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere. … The causes of global climate change remain in dispute. Existing theories of climate, atmospheric models, and actuarial experience are inadequate to meet the needs of policymakers for information about future climate.”

and,

Kukla, 1972 Climatic changes result from variables in planetary orbits which modulate solar energy emission and change seasonal and latitudinal distribution of heat received by the Earth. Small insolation changes are multiplied by the albedo effect of the winter snow fields of the Northern Hemisphere, by ocean-atmosphere feedbacks, and, probably, by the stratospheric ozone layer. The role of volcanic explosions and other aperiodic phenomena is secondary. The immediate climate response to insolation trends permits astronomic dating of Pleistocene events. A new glacial insolation regime, expected to last 8000 years, began just recently. Mean global temperatures may eventually drop about 1oC in the next hundred years. A refinement of the Milankovitch theory in terms of the lunar orbit and more data on solar periodicities are needed for reliable long range predictions.

and,

Ellsaesser , 1974 Has man, through increasing emissions of particulates, changed the climate? It is estimated that man now contributes 13.6% of the 3.5 x 109 tons of primary and secondary particulates presently emitted to the atmosphere annually. … [W]hile an anthropogenic upward trend in airborne particulates existed in the past, it was halted and may even have been reversed over the past few decades. … The 1968 AAAS Symposium on Global Effects of Environmental Pollution initiated a flood of papers supporting monotonically if not exponentially increasing pollution. The particulate increases were usually cited as at least contributing to the post 1940 cooling and possibly capable of bringing on another ice age.

and,

Cimorelli and House, 1974 Aside from such long-term changes, there is also evidence which indicates climate changes occurring in contemporary history. Mitchell (1971) among others, claims that during the last century a systematic fluctuation of global climate is revealed by meteorological data. He states that between 1880 and 1940 a net warming of about 0.6°C occurred, and from 1940 to the present our globe experienced a net cooling of 0.3°C. …

and,

Agee, 1980 Evidence has been presented and discussed to show a cooling trend over the Northern Hemisphere since around 1940, amounting to over 0.5°C, due primarily to cooling at mid- and high latitudes. Some regions of the middle latitudes have actually warmed while others, such as the central and eastern United States, have experienced sharp cooling. A representative station for this latter region is Lafayette, Ind., which has recorded a drop of 2.2°C in its mean annual temperature from 1940 through 1978. The cooling trend for the Northern Hemisphere has been associated with an increase of both the latitudinal gradient of temperature and the lapse rate, as predicted by climate models with decreased solar input and feedback mechanisms. … Observations and interpretation of sunspot activity have been used to infer a direct thermal response of terrestrial temperature to solar variability on the time scale of the Gleissberg cycle (∼90 years, an amplitude of the 11-year cycles). Measurements at the Greenwich Observatory and the Kitt Peak National Observatory, as well as other supportive information and arguments, are presented to hypothesize a physical link between the sunspot activity and the solar parameter. On the time scale of the Gleissberg cycle when the mean annual sunspot number exceeds 50 it is proposed that global cooling may be initiated due to the decreased insolation. This is also supported by umbral-to-penumbral ratios computed and interpreted by Hoyt (1979a).

and many more HERE

There was also a lot of Media talking about the well known COOLING of the 1960's and 1970's:

1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

excerpt:

"The scientists and computers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were confidently predicting that the frigid weather would continue. The chilling pronouncement of NOAA's senior climatologist: 'The forecast is for no change.' "
- Time Magazine, 1977

During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls.

e.g. "Pollution Prospect A Chilling One" (The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)

======================================================================================

There were plenty of evidence to show that there was a lot of observation of a real cooling going on in those days, I personally witnessed it as a Teenager, read some of the Literature of the day on it.

What you posted was lies and it is so obvious when a simple search finds a lot of contrary evidence.