The CIA isn’t an authority on climate. Obviously.
I’m not sure “widely accepted” is accurate. Global climate datasets were in their early days then.
You’re better off reading Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming if you’re interested. Try http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm#S2
You’re a silly thing. You now repudiate the authority you once used yourself.
Many years ago I asked Spencer when he would write ‘The Discovery of Global Cooling’. I still wait patiently for an answer.
=================
Wagathon asserts “there will always be a few diehards who still believe in the credibility of this broken man [Michael Mann].”
Gosh Wagathan … the 61,000-member American Geophysical Union has just elected Michael Mann a prestigious fellow of their professional society.
Whereas the denialist weblogs who are smearing both Michael Mann and his research number&nbdsp; maybe a dozen or so?
Hmmmm … I’d say Mann’s denialist detractors are outnumbered by … [calculates] … five-thousand-to-one?
Is that arithmetic right, Wagathon?
What are you on about? I’ve never used the CIA as an authority. You’re just making things up.
Omnologos’ quote is from your work. What to believe, what to believe, when William the Whiskered has brushes up his sleeves?
==================
The head of the IPCC said warming has halted for 17 years.
Which side is really the side in denial?
John M | March 3, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
So, which is it you’re now arguing? That Newsweek articles on science invariably draw strong rebukes disputing them, or that everyone in the 1970′s went along with Newsweek’s little puff piece?
And.. how exactly does it matter, either way?
Speaking of ‘hyperbolic BS’ or at least hockey blade bull, see Stevie Mac @ climateaudit.org
One wonders, at long last, why there’s no shame.
===============
Sorry, I still don’t know what you’re talking about.
You said “You now repudiate the authority you once used yourself.” What authority do you mean? If you mean a quote from http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 then that’s not an authority I “once used” its a paper I co-wrote. No, I don’t repudiate that. I’m not very comfortable with “widely accepted” though.
I thought you were talking about the CIA stuff as in http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/05/25/global-cooling-and-spooks-again/
manacker
What are you going to do if GAT starts rising again? Will you concede that you are on the wrong side of history?
manacker | March 3, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
You’ve read Paine very, very wrong. Paine did not call for governments to suppress the price of apples, the price of grain or the price of whale oil. Those who owned surplus to their needs of commodities were, per Paine, free to sell their excess in honest trade on a fair market.
So too Paine would back http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org/ against those oppressors who seek to ride free on the backs of every American..
Oh. Wait. I forgot. You aren’t one, then, are you? American, that is.
Bart R,
Sorry, don’t follow. You seem a bit confused, since all I did was post links to “modern” Newsweek articles in towing the line of the current “consensus”. This was in response to JCH’s implication that anything published in Newsweek must be wrong.
What are you arguing?
Found in the weekly Friday afternoon news dump by the Obama administration:
This is not an approval of the pipeline. It is not a recommendation in favor of the pipeline. But it is a failure to support blocking the building of the pipeline. Which is why it was released when it was likely to get the least attention.
Some facts about carbon dioxide and global warming.
The amoumt of heat that a gas (or any solid or liquid) can absorb for a 1.0C rise in temperature is called specific heat or heat capacity. Here are some figures for atnospheric gases:
Nitrogen (70% of atmosphere) 29.12
Oxygen (20% of atmosphere) 29.37
Carbon dioxide (less than 1% ) 36.62
These are molar heat capacities at the standard temperature of 25 degrees C.. You can see from this table that the atmosphere’s heat capacity is dominated by nitrogen and oxygen because of quantity. Yet CO2 is the culprit. Why?. Because CO2 has vibration modes at critical temperatures, not 25C, but higher and lower. These vibration modes can absorb heat energy like a sponge absorbs water. Classical thermodynamics does not deal well with these vibration modes, but quantum thermodynamics can and does and should be used by scientists to construct models and explain AGW. One thing we learn is that CO2 can just as easily lose heat as squeezing a sponge loses water and that is most likely what happened in 1940 which the IPCC ignored.
Why is there so little discussion of the heat capacity of atmospheric gases despite its obvious importance? I believe part of the answer is that theoretical physicists find it difficult to explain the degrees of freedom of molecules with more than two atoms (like CO2). But surely this is no impediment to experimental physicists? In the end only experiment can deternine whether a vubrational mode is excited or not..
64 comments and threading is already blown.
Rob, Judith has often acknowledged that she is a climate scientist rather than a policy adviser or advocate. I suspect that she will quite rightly stick to her scientific last, and if asked questions on policy will do no more than clarify the science relevant to the question.
+1.
Judith,
All the best with your presentation. I hope a You tube video can be released. I’d really like to participate in helping it to go viral.
William Connolley | March 4, 2013 at 8:46 am | >> Even then the balance of predictions was for warming.
> BS. Show it.
I already have. See http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/03/01/1970s-cooling-again/ and in particular http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Or if reading a paper is too hard for you, this graph http://www.flickr.com/photos/belette/8518783241/ is a useful summary.
More irrelevant information – you cannot show that in this period of declining temps, as the Brown University conference and its letter to President Nixon state clearly, that there was any talk at all of global warming let alone that it was overwhelmingly of this. You’re just bsing. It’s rather sad, you appear to be intelligent enough not to have to.
> At that time it was overwhelmingly for global cooling, you said so yourself in that paper and you say so again here: “No-one is denying that the[y] obs, then, showed a cooling trend.”
You’re still confusing the observations to-the-then-current-date with predictions of the then-future. The people, then (or at least most of them), knew full well that simply projecting current trends into the future is meaningless unless you understand the causes. And they knew they didn’t understand the causes.
They understood our IceAge cycles and that the warming earlier in the century was a continuation of the rise after the natural dip into the cold of the LIA.They understood the natural cycles existed because, because we didn’t have corrupt scientists then making the MWP and LIA disappear and pretending that the low temp at the end of the LIA was “normal” .. there was no hiding that we are coming to the end of our Holocene and the scare was real after the decades of cooling, as I posted earlier, which you chose to ignore and distract from, among which the letter to President Nixon which explained the conclusions from the conference at Brown University. Here the pertinent points again:
From
“http://fabiusmaximus.com/2009/10/21/letter/
“An important letter sent to the President about the danger of climate change
An important conference was held in January at Brown University: “The Present Interglacial, How and When Will it End?” (The October issue of Science had a summary of the it) As a result, the following letter was sent to the President. The media has not reported this, but you should be aware of the letter and its significance.
Dear Mr. President:
Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research.
The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.
The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.
…It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace.
We know the trend of rises and falls of temps in our Holocene, our last dip into the cold of the LIA was colder than the previous dips into cold after the Holocene Optimum, our hiccups into warmth have been decreasing since then also. We know we are heading back into glaciation, we may not know precisely when, but we sure as hell know that’s the direction we’re going in, not into the corrupt science scenario of the mythical runaway global warming of the IPCC science fraud consensus.
Only those with an agenda outside of science pushing the fake fisics of AGW global warming have an interest in keeping this science fraud going. The majority of the general public brainwashed by this fraud don’t have the time to examine the arguments, if they had they would see how those like you corrupt information about this, as you did and are still doing at wiki. Real science isn’t frightened of the truth.
The serious prediction was that our Holocene would end in a hundred years.
“The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.”
More references on:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0088&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
