What the founder of the CRU thought way back in 1972

[westwall]

An interesting little look back to what one of the leading climateologists of the era (and founder of the now disgraced CRU) predicted waaaayyy back in 1972. And for Old Fraud here is the beginning of your 25 year CO2 increase in the atmosphere and to date the climate has been following it's normal cycles. Yet more evidence that AGW theory is garbage.

- Bishop Hill blog - Hubert Lamb on iceages

 

[gslack]

An interesting little look back to what one of the leading climateologists of the era (and founder of the now disgraced CRU) predicted waaaayyy back in 1972. And for Old Fraud here is the beginning of your 25 year CO2 increase in the atmosphere and to date the climate has been following it's normal cycles. Yet more evidence that AGW theory is garbage.

- Bishop Hill blog - Hubert Lamb on iceages

Great find!

I love it when we get to see the real science peeking through the BS...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But but but but but but but but but but but everyone knows that deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 causes instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in our climate!

 

[Old Rocks]

"The full impact of the ice age will not be upon us for another ten thousand years,....."

That is the quote from your site;

- Bishop Hill blog - Hubert Lamb on iceages

In other words, at that time he was considering only the Milankovic Cycles, and not the growing levels of GHGs in our atmosphere.

No, we have not been following our normal cycles. We should be colder, but, instead are rapidly warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Union of Concerned Scientists
Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal."1

Woods Hole Research Center
"We may recall the extensive and incredibly successful campaign of the American tobacco companies to conceal the link between cancer and the use of tobacco products. For decades, they knew the reality of the addictive nature of nicotine and the carcinogenic effects of tobacco use. For decades, they successfully kept that reality hidden from the American public. The oil, coal, gas, and mining industries stand to lose tremendously if the truth about global warming becomes accepted by American society. As the tobacco industry invested millions in keeping its deadly secret, so also have the oil, coal, gas, and mining industries attempted to hide and discredit the link between CO2 emissions and a warming earth."1

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Third Assessment Report (2001)
Fourth Assessment Report ( 2007)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Even the minimum predicted shifts in climate for the 21st century are likely to be significant and disruptive.”1

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society [snip]The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and the Joint National Academies’ statement (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)..- AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors 9 December 2006

"AAAS President John P. Holdren and CEO Alan I. Leshner Sunday called for the U.S. public and their leaders to “muster the political will for serious evasive action” to address climate change. Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, the two AAAS leaders said that there can be no doubt about the reality of climate change."1

American Meteorological Society (AMS)
The American Meteorological Society endorses the "Joint Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change" released by the national academies of science of 11 countries, including the U.S., on 7 June 2005.”1

"Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents ... [that] interact strongly with the Earth's energy balance, resulting in the prospect of significant global warming. ... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders." - Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 84, 508—515

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course our current crop of purveyors of mindless derision of reality would deny that real scientists have any kind of knowledge. Like inconsequential mutts barking at the moon, they seem to believe their mindless mouthing have some meaning.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's GlobalWarmerCoolering!

No one can withstand the twin forces of Warmer and Cooling!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"The full impact of the ice age will not be upon us for another ten thousand years,....."

That is the quote from your site;

- Bishop Hill blog - Hubert Lamb on iceages

In other words, at that time he was considering only the Milankovic Cycles, and not the growing levels of GHGs in our atmosphere.

No, we have not been following our normal cycles. We should be colder, but, instead are rapidly warming.

But you still can't show us a single laboratory experiment where deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 causes instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in our climate, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"The full impact of the ice age will not be upon us for another ten thousand years,....."

That is the quote from your site;

- Bishop Hill blog - Hubert Lamb on iceages

In other words, at that time he was considering only the Milankovic Cycles, and not the growing levels of GHGs in our atmosphere.

No, we have not been following our normal cycles. We should be colder, but, instead are rapidly warming.

Again, based on what?

I predict that in 10,000 years the climate will be different than it is today!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So wait, if we are in the middle of a cooling trend than GHG's are actually far far far more powerful than the Warmers have been claiming, right?

 

[gslack]

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Union of Concerned Scientists
Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal."1

Woods Hole Research Center
"We may recall the extensive and incredibly successful campaign of the American tobacco companies to conceal the link between cancer and the use of tobacco products. For decades, they knew the reality of the addictive nature of nicotine and the carcinogenic effects of tobacco use. For decades, they successfully kept that reality hidden from the American public. The oil, coal, gas, and mining industries stand to lose tremendously if the truth about global warming becomes accepted by American society. As the tobacco industry invested millions in keeping its deadly secret, so also have the oil, coal, gas, and mining industries attempted to hide and discredit the link between CO2 emissions and a warming earth."1

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Third Assessment Report (2001)
Fourth Assessment Report ( 2007)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Even the minimum predicted shifts in climate for the 21st century are likely to be significant and disruptive.”1

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society [snip]The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and the Joint National Academies’ statement (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)..- AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors 9 December 2006

"AAAS President John P. Holdren and CEO Alan I. Leshner Sunday called for the U.S. public and their leaders to “muster the political will for serious evasive action” to address climate change. Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, the two AAAS leaders said that there can be no doubt about the reality of climate change."1

American Meteorological Society (AMS)
The American Meteorological Society endorses the "Joint Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change" released by the national academies of science of 11 countries, including the U.S., on 7 June 2005.”1

"Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents ... [that] interact strongly with the Earth's energy balance, resulting in the prospect of significant global warming. ... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders." - Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 84, 508—515

Dude you have no shame do you.... Either you don't have any shame or you don't realize a difference between a biased source when it supports your side......

I am going to ask you this one time, and one time only.... You now have to decide whats more important to you; your agenda or your character....

So my question to you is.. Is that source biased or not?

Answer it honestly and save some of your dignity, or lie about it as you usually do and admit you are without character and have sold your soul to this agenda......

 

[konradv]

LOL!!! You pulled out one of the "Ice Age" and think it supports your cause?!?! Anyone with a critical mind not invested in making sure a particular side wins, would have to think, what's made so many scientists change their minds, so fast? This just underscores that the deniers' motives are purely political. They spread stories like this to the scientifically unsophisticated to further the meme that "scientists don't know what they're talking about" and hoping that their audience doesn't figure out that means the skeptics too!!!

 

[gslack]

LOL!!! You pulled out one of the "Ice Age" and think it supports your cause?!?! Anyone with a critical mind not invested in making sure a particular side wins, would have to think, what's made so many scientists change their minds, so fast? This just underscores that the deniers' motives are purely political. They spread stories like this to the scientifically unsophisticated to further the meme that "scientists don't know what they're talking about" and hoping that their audience doesn't figure out that means the skeptics too!!!

Be quiet idiot and let your pal answer the simple question... Every single time he is nailed being a deliberate propagandist and liar you show up and spout off insults like an idiot..... its a pattern moron, and its undeniable... Now shut up and let the adults talk junior....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Anyone with a critical mind not invested in making sure a particular side wins, would have to think, what's made so many scientists change their minds, so fast?!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[konradv]

Be quiet idiot and let your pal answer the simple question...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
-----------------------

I'll answer anytime I please, Adolf. It works both ways and you know it. Who's got more to gain?

 

[gslack]

Be quiet idiot and let your pal answer the simple question...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
-----------------------

I'll answer anytime I please, Adolf. It works both ways and you know it. Who's got more to gain?

HAHHAHHAHHAA!

okay then Polly, since your little buddy is avoiding it, you answer it then...

Is the source he provided biased?

 

[gslack]

Since oldrocks and his little parrot refuse to answer the question I asked regarding a source oldrocks used in his post. We can safely assume oldrocks has sold his soul to furhter this agenda, and is indeed without character...

his source link....Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Their main page : Logical Science

The title on the blog states: "Logical Science.com Defending the scientific consensus from vested interests."

hmm why that would seem biased to me....

Their mission statement: Our goal is simple: to help layman separate science from politics

When scientific evidence and the interests of an oligopoly or monopoly conflict, science is often suppressed, spun, edited and even deleted. This was true with big tobacco and it is true now with the 3 trillion dollar energy industry. Our goal is to simply defend the international scientific consensus and summarize the industrial misinformation campaign in a way any layman can understand. Every quote, every fact, every sentence will be sourced so the user can quickly and easily check the facts for his or herself. We do not perform any original research. This website merely repeats what the experts are already saying. This website is non-profit. It is built entirely from spare time and out of pocket money. This makes the work slow but it is the best way to minimize any conflicts of interest.

Well it seems they are already sure of who is who and what is what regarding this issue. They have decided in such a biased manner that they are here to further the so-called consensus findings.

yeah thats a bit biased.... but I wanted to be sure so I looked over some of their quotes, citations, and remarks they have in that page oldrocks linked to... And I found the following interesting things...

The site claimed this was what the NOAA said about AGW....

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.” 1

Well that would sound pretty convincing unless you follow the little link they have there in the little number "1" on the end. And read what they actually did say completely.

If you follow the little tiny reference link they supplied you get this page on the NOAA site.
Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

And after sifting through the various FAQ's they have listed you eventually will find the reference they cited. Which states the following...

10. Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

Now I bolded the parts that really tell the tale here... I also italicized and underlined the part oldrocks source cited.....

So the whole thing tells us exactly what I have told here in this forum to oldrocks and many others one more than one occasion. The fact is like the NOAA states, the suns variances are not fully understood yet and the variances of the sun in the past corresponds perfectly with climate changes of the past.

Now that is not at all what we would assume by reading the excerpt oldrocks source gave us now is it... Not even close..... That is called misleading and giving quotes out of context to give a false scenario, that is not backed up by the actual science. Meaning in a nutshell, once again oldrocks has posted propaganda based nonsense...

You sir a liar and a fraud. you are perpetrating lies on the people of the world for a petty political party or ideology... God help you....

 

[Oddball]

A complete list of things caused by global warming