Global Warming is such Wooly Mammoth Crap.

[Wyatt earp]

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

And with your link now you get your science from a Writer?


Brian Dunning (author)
Brian Andrew Dunning (born 1965) is an American writer and producer who focuses on science and skepticism.[1]He has hosted a weekly podcast, Skeptoid, since 2006, and he is an author of a series of books on the subject of scientific skepticism, some of which are based on the podcast. Skeptoid has been the recipient of several podcast awards such as the Parsec Award. Dunning also created a Skeptoid spin-off video series, inFact, available on YouTube.

Do you think what the writer wrote was science?

Are you questioning the information he wrote about? The 90-10 split among climate scientist in the 60's-70's? If so do you have another study that you'd care to cite?

That 2008 survey is the same thing Cook did to produce the 98% myth .. cherry picked to get the results they wanted .

Did you read the part where it said " we didn't have models back then"


I can see these jerks 20 years in the future saying " well we didn't have flux capacitors back then" as an excuse

 

[Wyatt earp]

His adviser is JAMES HANSEN who the fuck are you trying to fool?


.

So was it James Hansen that said back in 2000 the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

What are you trying to say here?

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

Anyways read this PDF where the dick head Brian Dunning got it from...


Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FAvQQFggjMAE&usg=AOvVaw26i7HmIp7UhfvT-6DrTf-B

 

[Wyatt earp]

So was it James Hansen that said back in 2000 the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

What are you trying to say here?

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

Anyways read this PDF where the dick head Brian Dunning got it from...


Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FAvQQFggjMAE&usg=AOvVaw26i7HmIp7UhfvT-6DrTf-B

From My PDF link




THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS:
A COOLING TREND. Efforts to accumulate and organize global temperature records began in
the 1870s (Somerville et al. 2007). The first analysis to show long-term warming trends was published
in 1938. However, such analyses were not updated very often. Indeed, the Earth appeared to have been
cooling for more than 2 decades when scientists first took note of the change in trend in the 1960s. The
seminal work was done by J. Murray Mitchell, who, in 1963, presented the first up-to-date temperature
reconstruction showing that a global cooling trend had begun in the 1940s. Mitchell used data from
nearly 200 weather stations, collected by the World Weather Records project under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization, to calculate latitudinal average temperature. His analysis showed
that global temperatures had increased fairly steadily from the 1880s, the start of his record, until about 1940, before the start of a steady multidecade cooling (Mitchell 1963).By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work
(Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood. The first satellite records showed increasing snow and ice cover across the Northern Hemisphere from the late
1960s to the early 1970s. This trend was capped by unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North
America in 1972 and 1973 (Kukla and Kukla 1974

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

Anyways read this PDF where the dick head Brian Dunning got it from...


Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FAvQQFggjMAE&usg=AOvVaw26i7HmIp7UhfvT-6DrTf-B

From My PDF link




THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS:
A COOLING TREND. Efforts to accumulate and organize global temperature records began in
the 1870s (Somerville et al. 2007). The first analysis to show long-term warming trends was published
in 1938. However, such analyses were not updated very often. Indeed, the Earth appeared to have been
cooling for more than 2 decades when scientists first took note of the change in trend in the 1960s. The
seminal work was done by J. Murray Mitchell, who, in 1963, presented the first up-to-date temperature
reconstruction showing that a global cooling trend had begun in the 1940s. Mitchell used data from
nearly 200 weather stations, collected by the World Weather Records project under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization, to calculate latitudinal average temperature. His analysis showed
that global temperatures had increased fairly steadily from the 1880s, the start of his record, until about 1940, before the start of a steady multidecade cooling (Mitchell 1963).By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work
(Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood. The first satellite records showed increasing snow and ice cover across the Northern Hemisphere from the late
1960s to the early 1970s. This trend was capped by unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North
America in 1972 and 1973 (Kukla and Kukla 1974

So they had to change it

 

[JoeB131]

Did they say the 70s were unusually cold?

nothing to do with my point, but man, you specialize in just trying to change the subject, don't you?

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years.

Congrats, you learned "how to lie with Charts!" The Koch brothers will be sending your diploma shortly.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

Anyways read this PDF where the dick head Brian Dunning got it from...


Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FAvQQFggjMAE&usg=AOvVaw26i7HmIp7UhfvT-6DrTf-B

From My PDF link




THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS:
A COOLING TREND. Efforts to accumulate and organize global temperature records began in
the 1870s (Somerville et al. 2007). The first analysis to show long-term warming trends was published
in 1938. However, such analyses were not updated very often. Indeed, the Earth appeared to have been
cooling for more than 2 decades when scientists first took note of the change in trend in the 1960s. The
seminal work was done by J. Murray Mitchell, who, in 1963, presented the first up-to-date temperature
reconstruction showing that a global cooling trend had begun in the 1940s. Mitchell used data from
nearly 200 weather stations, collected by the World Weather Records project under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization, to calculate latitudinal average temperature. His analysis showed
that global temperatures had increased fairly steadily from the 1880s, the start of his record, until about 1940, before the start of a steady multidecade cooling (Mitchell 1963).By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work
(Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood. The first satellite records showed increasing snow and ice cover across the Northern Hemisphere from the late
1960s to the early 1970s. This trend was capped by unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North
America in 1972 and 1973 (Kukla and Kukla 1974

the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood



All they are saying to me well we didn't understand it but we know everything now, what a bunch of clowns .

We'll see it was areosoles back then cooling the planet ..that's it ureka ..

If it wasn't for areosoles this planet would of burnt up by now ..


What a bunch of retards.

 

[IanC]

Apparently we didn't know how to read a thermometer in any of the decades of the last century. They all had to be 'adjusted'.

Then we found out that we didn't know how to read thermometers in the 00's. And everything had to be 'readjusted'.

In three years we will find out that we didn't know how to read a thermometer in the 10's either. And all the readings will have to be re-readjusted.
In actual fact, the numbers are being constantly changed. The readings for pre-1960 typically go down, and after 1960 they typically go up.

The abrupt change at 1940 is the result of two things. Necessary but still discretionary adjustments to ocean temperatures. And a need to smooth out warming/cooling bump that wrecked the temperature to CO2 correlation.

Here is part of an email chain released in Climategate-

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip"


Edit- remember these are just changes from 2008. No one knew that the adjustments were going to be made and the old data tossed out, or at least made unavailable. All the most reasonable and necessary adjustments had already been made by the turn of the millennium.

 

[IanC]

Here is more detailed info for two specific dates.

A more suspicious mind than mine might wonder if the traction in the public for this graph might have caused a little correction for Jan 1915 in 2015 to reduce the bad publicity.

 

[IanC]

The GISS maturity graph, and specific info for two dates. The major version change at the end of 2012 is vary visible.

A more suspicious mind than mine would wonder why climate4you chose jan1910 rather than jan1915 like in the NCDC graphs.

 

[JoeB131]

The GISS maturity graph, and specific info for two dates. The major version change at the end of 2012 is vary visible.

A more suspicious mind than mine would wonder why climate4you chose jan1910 rather than jan1915 like in the NCDC graphs.

Yes, yes, 95% of Climate scientist are getting it wrong, but you can read a graph, you think. Got it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did they say the 70s were unusually cold?

nothing to do with my point, but man, you specialize in just trying to change the subject, don't you?

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years.

Congrats, you learned "how to lie with Charts!" The Koch brothers will be sending your diploma shortly.

It's true, I'm not going to let you mention how cold the 70s were and then avoid my questions.

 

[JoeB131]

It's true, I'm not going to let you mention how cold the 70s were and then avoid my questions.

Well, when you ask an honest question, then I'll engage you like an adult.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The GISS maturity graph, and specific info for two dates. The major version change at the end of 2012 is vary visible.

A more suspicious mind than mine would wonder why climate4you chose jan1910 rather than jan1915 like in the NCDC graphs.

Yes, yes, 95% of Climate scientist are getting it wrong, but you can read a graph, you think. Got it.

Yes, yes, 95% of Climate scientist are getting it wrong,

If 95% of scientists are on your side and the data is on your side, why does your side need to keep cheating?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's true, I'm not going to let you mention how cold the 70s were and then avoid my questions.

Well, when you ask an honest question, then I'll engage you like an adult.

You said we had real winters when you were growing up in the 70s.
Were the 70s unusually cold?

 

[ding]

You worship science right up to the point it disagrees with you, Joe.

Too bad you don't know diddly squat about science, Joe.

I know enough to know we have a real fucking problem.

This is what I don't get about deniers. I can get having a valid disagreement on what to do about it, but the science is the science. CO2 traps heat. Human beings have increased CO2 levels well above normal levels at an accellerated rate.

There's no problem, Joe.

We're in an interglacial cycle.

That's what they look like.

The earth is being warmed unnaturally by humans at a fairly rapid rate. Interglacial period or not, humans are having some effect.

We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.

But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?

What part of CO2 does not drive climate change did you not understand?

 

[ding]

There's no problem, Joe.

We're in an interglacial cycle.

That's what they look like.

The earth is being warmed unnaturally by humans at a fairly rapid rate. Interglacial period or not, humans are having some effect.

We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.

But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?

No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?

So you think we should all be ignorant of what humans are doing to climate?

We aren't doing anything to the climate.

 

[JoeB131]

If 95% of scientists are on your side and the data is on your side, why does your side need to keep cheating?

Except they don't. That's only a crazy claim the deniers came up with.

The deniers are too dumb to understand the science.

You said we had real winters when you were growing up in the 70s.
Were the 70s unusually cold?

Wasn't the point I was making and you know it... this is why talking to you is a waste.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If 95% of scientists are on your side and the data is on your side, why does your side need to keep cheating?

Except they don't. That's only a crazy claim the deniers came up with.

The deniers are too dumb to understand the science.

You said we had real winters when you were growing up in the 70s.
Were the 70s unusually cold?

Wasn't the point I was making and you know it... this is why talking to you is a waste.

Except they don't.

Right. All those adjustments to historical temperatures.
Perfectly normal. Happens all the time.
The fact that they make the past look cooler so the present looks warmer, coincidence.

And those climate-gate emails?
They were just joking when they discussed preventing the other side from publishing.
And "hiding the decline", "Mike's nature trick", in no way were they discussing ways to
manipulate the data to make things look worse.

Nope, just a crazy denier claim.

Wasn't the point I was making and you know it...

Excellent!

So the 60s were colder than the 50s?

The 50s were colder than the 40s?

The 40s must have been colder than the 30s, right?

 

[mamooth]

Yes, yes, 95% of Climate scientist are getting it wrong, but you can read a graph, you think. Got it.

Those who are familiar with the science know that the total adjustments have, by making the past look much warmer, made the current warming look much smaller. That's not debatable, and that means Ian's crank conspiracy theory goes into the shitcan. Not that Ian will care. He's a true believer. His cult tells him to believe, so like every other denier here he'll keep cherrypicking his heart out until reality matches his dogma. He's not as dumb as the other deniers, but he is just as fanatical and brainwashed

The denier cult is based entirely on faking data. Fraud is what deniers do. It's all deniers do. If a denier says something, experience shows one should initially assume it's a lie, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise.

<data:blog.pageTitle/>

 

[JoeB131]

Right. All those adjustments to historical temperatures.
Perfectly normal. Happens all the time.

Um, yeah, they usually do take outliers out of a statistical survey. Another one of them new fangled science things you don't dun learn you at Talking Snake U, Cleetus.