Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[cnm]

Time Magazine, 1977

Yes. A magazine.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

I knew I wasn't lying or crazy, Tommy. We used to have freezing cold and snow like all getout. My father had such big piles of snow along the driveway, they were over his head and we used to dig them out and make igloo clubhouses inside.

And snowmen? The biggest and best. In just a few feet we'd have balls of snow too big to lift or push. And it was snowing almost every day. It was a great time for a kid.

 

[cnm]

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 guess you didn't go to the source I linked. No worries, that's all part of denial. Kudos.

Ten years ago, Thomas Peterson, William Connolley and John Fleck published a paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society which looked back at the climate science of the 1970s: "The Myth of the Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" (hereafter called PCF08). The goal of the paper was to look at the peer-reviewed literature of the time to see what scientists were saying about the future projections of climate. In the decades since the 1970s, some "skeptics" of global warming/climate change have made claims that "all the scientists" in the 1970s were predicting "global cooling" or an "imminent ice age". But, the PCF08 survey of papers from 1965 to 1979 showed that while there were some concerns about future "cooling", especially at the beginning of the time period, there were many more concerns about future warming caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide.
The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I​

 

[toobfreak]

I guess you didn't go to the source I linked. No worries, that's all part of denial. Kudos.

Yes I did. You linked me to this shitty little picture.
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/report/files/images/web-small/Figure-18-small.jpg
You are the only one in denial Tard. I LIVED THEN. Haven't heard you say you did. There were ZERO stories of global warming, idiot. Deny that.
Then deny THIS:
285 Papers 70s Cooling 1

TARDS DIE HARD

 

[Sunsettommy]

I guess you didn't go to the source I linked. No worries, that's all part of denial. Kudos.

Yes I did. You liked me to this shitty little picture.
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/report/files/images/web-small/Figure-18-small.jpg
You are the only one in denial Tard. I LIVED THEN. Haven't heard you say you did. There were ZERO stories of global warming, idiot. Deny that.
Then deny THIS:
285 Papers 70s Cooling 1

TARDS DIE HARD

He IS an idiot, who completely ignored a few PUBLISHED papers I posted as examples. He is a warmist cultist who doesn't know when to stop making a fool of himself here.

Here is some more PUBLISHED papers he will ignore:

Gribbin, 1975 A recent flurry of papers has provided further evidence for the belief that the Earth is cooling. There now seems to be little doubt that changes over the past few years are more than a minor statistical fluctuation. … On page 45 of this issue of Nature, Wahl and Bryson compare recent sea surface temperature patterns with those of cooler regimes in the past, and conclude that over the period from 1951 to 1972 there was a decline corresponding “to a return of about one-sixth of the way to full ice age.” … The observed cooling corresponds to a re-establishment of the ‘Little Ice Age’ which persisted for several hundred years up to the end of the nineteenth century; it may be that all that has happened since 1950 is that the unusually mild spell of the first part of this century has ended.

and,

NOAA, 1974 In the Sahelian zone of Africa south of the Sahara, the countries of Chad, The Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, and Upper Volta are enduring a drought that in some areas has been going on for more than six years now, following some 40 previous years of abundant monsoon rainfall. And the drought is spreading—eastward into Ehtiopia and southward into Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, Tanzania, and Zaire. … Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world. … Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes. A drop of only one or two degrees Centigrade in the annual average temperature at higher latitudes can shorten the growing season so that some crops have to be abandoned. … [T]he average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950’s, Iceland’s hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. … Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world’s hungriest continent. … Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an “ice age.”

and,

Wahl, 1968 A comparison of climatic data for the eastern United States from the 1830’s and 1840’s with the currently valid climatic normals indicates a distinctly cooler and, in some areas, wetter climate in the first half of the last century. The recently appearing trend to cooler conditions noticed here and elsewhere could be indicative of a return to the climatic character of those earlier years [1830s, 1840s]. … This penultimate climatic episode, called the “Neoboreal” by Baerreis and Bryson (1965) and also frequently referred to as the “Little Ice Age” (Brooks, 1951) apparently started during the middle of the 16th century at a time of glacial advances both in Europe and North America. It continued as a distinctly cooler, and, in some regions, wetter period well into the 19th century. Following it was a warming trend that between 1880 and 1940 to 1950 became quite pronounced in very many regions of the Northern Hemisphere. During the last two decades there appears to be some evidence that this warming trend of the last 100 yr. has changed over recently to a distinct new deterioration of the climate, leading to conditions that in the 1960’s appear to approach those which were generally found around the turn of the century or even earlier, i.e. a return to the climatic character of the 19th century … A downward trend of the mean temperature, especially in early fall, will tend to increase the likelihood of early frosts (such as Wisconsin experienced in 1965 with some killing frost in lowlands on July 6) and thus may require changes in agricultural practices. One should not forget that an average decrease in mean monthly averages of about 4° is equivalent to a displacement of the isotherms by about 4° latitude or 250 to 300 mi., or to reaching a certain temperature threshold about 10 days earlier in fall.

Connolly never saw these papers because he is a dishonest jackass!

 

[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...

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.

Funny the way you guys just make up crap as you go and I suppose, believe it because you said it.

Is the fact that the SB law speaks to a theoretical black body in a theoretically perfect vacuum to difficult for you to grasp? Apparently it must be.

 

[SSDD]

Reemits as quickly as it absorbs?

He shot himself in the foot again.

Guess you don't grasp the significance of the fact that the SB law speaks to a theoretical perfect black body in a theoretically perfect vacuum either...you to were made for each other...you both just make it up as you go then agree with each other...

 

[SSDD]

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!!!

And in order for the temperature to change...all must either increase or decrease frequency amplitudes...sorry guy...

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

Correct..and yet, that is the basis of the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

From the IPCC:
FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Clip: Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

They couldn't say it any more clearly....the claim is that energy radiating from the surface of the earth is absorbed and re radiated back to the surface of the earth and that energy that originated from the surface of the earth then warms the surface of the earth. The claim is that the earth is warmed by reabsorbing its own radiation. Now you may have a different version...since all of you warmers seem to have your own version...but that is the mainstream version endorsed by climate science..and describes the magical process that would be necessary in order for a radiative greenhouse effect to exist..

You are lying again and you know it.

Interesting that you think the truth is a lie...

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

The SB law says what it says...and no part of what it says supports what you claim it says...and as I said, modern science is in the throes of a reproducibility crisis because of a belief in models over reality.

You are lying again. Absolutely lying.

So which physical law(s) predict back radiation?...Which physical law(s) predict that energy can move spontaneously between objects of different temperatures?

 

[SSDD]

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

You are very easily fooled...you might start with a temperature reconstruction that has not been tortured into supporting a lie.

 

[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.

Funny the way you guys just make up crap as you go and I suppose, believe it because you said it.

Is the fact that the SB law speaks to a theoretical black body in a theoretically perfect vacuum to difficult for you to grasp? Apparently it must be.

Funny the way you guys just make up crap as you go and I suppose, believe it because you said it.

That portion of what you posted was made up?

Is the fact that the SB law speaks to a theoretical black body in a theoretically perfect vacuum to difficult for you to grasp?

Not at all. Where does it say that bodies at equilibrium stop emitting?
Where does it say bodies dial down their emissions according to the unknowable temperature of nearby bodies? Nowhere? Must be your grasp that's failing.

 

[SSDD]

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

So easily fooled...are you a dupe or do you just want to be fooled?

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Clip: “[T]he temperature in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970, a time of rapid CO2 buildup. … Northern latitudes warmed ~ 0.8°C between the 1880’s and 1940, then cooled – 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970.”

Carbon dioxide and its role in climate change

Clip: “In the period from 1880 to 1940, the mean temperature of the earth increased about 0.6°C; from 1940 to 1970, it decreased by 0.3-0.4°C.”


https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750020489.pdf

Clip: “etween 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.”


From the National Academy of Science....

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

“Starr and Oort (1973) have reported that, during the period 1958-1963, the hemisphere’s (mass-weighted) mean temperature decreased by about 0.6 °C. … Since the 1940’s, mean temperatures have declined and are now nearly halfway back to the 1880 levels. … There seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate … [T]here is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next hundred years. … [A]s each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5 percent greater chance of encountering its [the next glacial’s] onset.”


NOAA, 1974

Clip: “Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world. … Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes.”
“[T]he average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950’s, Iceland’s hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. … Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world’s hungriest continent. … Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an ‘ice age’.”


Here is the degree to which the temperature record has been altered in an attempt to make the ice age scare disappear...

Here are just some of the more than 300 papers that were published that had concerns about the cooling trend...

Kukla, 1972
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,1974
Ellsaesser, 1975
Agee, 1980
Benton, 1970
Hare, 1971
Gribbin, 1975
Ellsaesser , 1974
Flohn, 1974
Stewart and Glantz, 1985
Curry, 1969
Denton and Karlén, 1977
Denton and Karlén, 1973
Potter et al., 1981
Brinkmann, 1979
Wright, 1972
Robock, 1978
Magill, 1980
Bryson and Wendland, 1975
Skeeter, 1985
Hoffert and Flannery, 1985
Schneider, 1974
Bradley and Miller, 1972
Collis, 1975
Haber, 1974
Ghil, 1975
Wahl, 1968
Eichenlaub, 1970
Budyko, 1969
Hughs, 1970
Fletcher, 1970
Thompson, 1975
Fletcher, 1968
Schneider, 1978
Sanchez and Kutzbach, 1974
Hansen et al., 1981
Moran and Morgan, 1977
Gates, 1976
Andrews et al., 1972
Potter et al., 1975
Allen et al., 1976
Ya-feng et al., 1978
Ložek, 1972

And there are plenty more...you can believe your opinion pieces, and all the attempts to make the ice age scare disappear, but the literature is still out there and it tells a very different story than the one you believe...

 

[Wuwei]

Reemits as quickly as it absorbs?

He shot himself in the foot again.

Guess you don't grasp the significance of the fact that the SB law speaks to a theoretical perfect black body in a theoretically perfect vacuum either...you to were made for each other...you both just make it up as you go then agree with each other...

This is the quote Tod pointed out from your source contradicting what you just said. Read the last line several times. If that isn't shooting yourself in the foot (metaphorically) I don't know what is.

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). ​

 

[Billy_Bob]

Unfortunately, there isn't much money in skepticism...there never has been and even skeptics have to eat

Polluters are the biggest skeptics , who have a LOT to loose ......

Trump buildings face millions in climate fines under new New York rules

According to data shared with the Guardian, eight Trump properties in New York City do not comply with new regulations designed to slash greenhouse gas emissions. This means the Trump Organization is on track to be hit with fines of $2.1m every year from 2030, unless its buildings are made more environmentally friendly.

According to city officials, the president’s eight largest New York properties pump out around 27,000 tons of planet-warming gases every ear, the equivalent of 5,800 cars

~S~

Oh look... Sparkys drinking from the toilet bowl again...

How did the projects your fine mayor built and manage work out? rat infested... refused to fix elevators... refuse to fix plumbing and structures... That's you idiots vision for New York....

 

[IanC]

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

So easily fooled...are you a dupe or do you just want to be fooled?

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Clip: “[T]he temperature in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970, a time of rapid CO2 buildup. … Northern latitudes warmed ~ 0.8°C between the 1880’s and 1940, then cooled – 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970.”

Carbon dioxide and its role in climate change

Clip: “In the period from 1880 to 1940, the mean temperature of the earth increased about 0.6°C; from 1940 to 1970, it decreased by 0.3-0.4°C.”


https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750020489.pdf

Clip: “etween 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.”


From the National Academy of Science....

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

“Starr and Oort (1973) have reported that, during the period 1958-1963, the hemisphere’s (mass-weighted) mean temperature decreased by about 0.6 °C. … Since the 1940’s, mean temperatures have declined and are now nearly halfway back to the 1880 levels. … There seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate … [T]here is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next hundred years. … [A]s each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5 percent greater chance of encountering its [the next glacial’s] onset.”


NOAA, 1974

Clip: “Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world. … Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes.”
“[T]he average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950’s, Iceland’s hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. … Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world’s hungriest continent. … Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an ‘ice age’.”


Here is the degree to which the temperature record has been altered in an attempt to make the ice age scare disappear...

Here are just some of the more than 300 papers that were published that had concerns about the cooling trend...

Kukla, 1972
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,1974
Ellsaesser, 1975
Agee, 1980
Benton, 1970
Hare, 1971
Gribbin, 1975
Ellsaesser , 1974
Flohn, 1974
Stewart and Glantz, 1985
Curry, 1969
Denton and Karlén, 1977
Denton and Karlén, 1973
Potter et al., 1981
Brinkmann, 1979
Wright, 1972
Robock, 1978
Magill, 1980
Bryson and Wendland, 1975
Skeeter, 1985
Hoffert and Flannery, 1985
Schneider, 1974
Bradley and Miller, 1972
Collis, 1975
Haber, 1974
Ghil, 1975
Wahl, 1968
Eichenlaub, 1970
Budyko, 1969
Hughs, 1970
Fletcher, 1970
Thompson, 1975
Fletcher, 1968
Schneider, 1978
Sanchez and Kutzbach, 1974
Hansen et al., 1981
Moran and Morgan, 1977
Gates, 1976
Andrews et al., 1972
Potter et al., 1975
Allen et al., 1976
Ya-feng et al., 1978
Ložek, 1972

And there are plenty more...you can believe your opinion pieces, and all the attempts to make the ice age scare disappear, but the literature is still out there and it tells a very different story than the one you believe...

I recommend that everyone reads the second link labeled CIA.

I started a thread about it years ago. It warns against a plethora of ills that could befall the world due to global cooling. I leave it to the reader to decide whether the list is different than the ills that are being blamed on global warming.

 

[IanC]

Clip: Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

They couldn't say it any more clearly....the claim is that energy radiating from the surface of the earth is absorbed and re radiated back to the surface of the earth and that energy that originated from the surface of the earth then warms the surface of the earth. The claim is that the earth is warmed by reabsorbing its own radiation. Now you may have a different version...since all of you warmers seem to have your own version...but that is the mainstream version endorsed by climate science..and describes the magical process that would be necessary in order for a radiative greenhouse effect to exist..

I agree that the wording is atrocious. What does the word 'much' apply to?

 

[Wuwei]

And in order for the temperature to change...all must either increase or decrease frequency amplitudes...sorry guy...

Frequency amplitudes? You have to be more clear than that.

From the IPCC:
FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Clip: Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

They couldn't say it any more clearly....the claim is that energy radiating from the surface of the earth is absorbed and re radiated back to the surface of the earth and that energy that originated from the surface of the earth then warms the surface of the earth. The claim is that the earth is warmed by reabsorbing its own radiation. Now you may have a different version...since all of you warmers seem to have your own version...but that is the mainstream version endorsed by climate science..and describes the magical process that would be necessary in order for a radiative greenhouse effect to exist..

I agree that wording is very sloppy. It is a preface in italic geared toward high school level. So apparently they dumbed it down. In the diagram at the bottom of that site they were slightly better, but still off.

The rest of your post is the usual profession that you don't believe the physics ofthe last 150 years.


.

 

[Wuwei]

I recommend that everyone reads the second link labeled CIA.

They were close on the population but they didn't predict big agriculture and better agriculture technology. Sounds like an echo of Malthus from 1798.

 

[IanC]

I recommend that everyone reads the second link labeled CIA.

They were close on the population but they didn't predict big agriculture and better agriculture technology. Sounds like an echo of Malthus from 1798.

Sorry. I made an assumption that it was the same CIA paper.

You know what they say about when you assume. Hahahahaha

 

[IanC]

I recommend that everyone reads the second link labeled CIA.

They were close on the population but they didn't predict big agriculture and better agriculture technology. Sounds like an echo of Malthus from 1798.

I bumped the original thread for you.

 

[SSDD]

Clip: Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

They couldn't say it any more clearly....the claim is that energy radiating from the surface of the earth is absorbed and re radiated back to the surface of the earth and that energy that originated from the surface of the earth then warms the surface of the earth. The claim is that the earth is warmed by reabsorbing its own radiation. Now you may have a different version...since all of you warmers seem to have your own version...but that is the mainstream version endorsed by climate science..and describes the magical process that would be necessary in order for a radiative greenhouse effect to exist..

I agree that the wording is atrocious. What does the word 'much' apply to?

" Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed.................."

The wording describes the hypothesis precisely...it is the hypothesis itself that is atrocious.