Government scientists are much smarter now and know that global warming causes droughts, floods, and massive tragedies – rather than global cooling.
Regardless, John Cook has proven that the global cooling scare never happened.
www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/Ominous Changes in the Worlds Weather.pdf
In April of the same year (which never happened) the worst tornado outbreak in US history occurred.
 | gelcarrion0t on Australia Permanent Drought Up… |
| gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… |
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp |
 | Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… |
 | energywise on What’s At Stake? |
 | Robert Cherba on Too Hot To Live |
| gelcarrion0t on Too Hot To Live |
 | Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
A 33% chance of predicting it right:
Either global warming, or global cooling, or no change in temperature, can happen alongside recurring droughts and floods.
But it still doesn’t mean any of it is related or correct theory.
“The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337, 2008
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Who said anything about a consensus? Who said the reaction in the ’70s was ANYTHING like the hysterical shrilling of today. It is a simple fact though that .weather was behaving in a way which led some climatologists, including, it would seem, the Ur-climatologist of East Anglia, that something very unusual was going on with the climate.
Folks, this is what’s called a “strawman” argument, if you haven’t seen it before. Rather than take issue with the actual given story or position, he sets up a decoy, pretends THAT is the question instead, and beats hell of it: rather like unto the saying of The Bard, “..a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”
In the 1970s — 40 years ago — scientists were struggling to figure out the relative contributions of CO2 and air pollution (aerosols). They were already beginning to get a pretty good handle on CO2:
http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html
William M. Connolley, one of the co-authors, has ZERO credibility:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/
I admit being a political activist for the green party might be a bit of a red flag. 😉
William Connolley knows far more about climate science that you can ever aspire to.
@David: I couldn’t give a damn how much Connolley knows about climate science. The fact that he was banned from Wikipedia for censoring opposing views shows his true character (in this case, lack of character). It also shows that he is biased to the point of lacking any objectivity.
My reading of Connolley is that he is a rigorous scientist who seeks to promulgate the most accurate picture of the science he knows. Nothing you’ve said, or that I’ve seen via Wikipedia, has come close to convincing me otherwise.
@David: “My reading of Connolley is that he is a rigorous scientist who seeks to promulgate the most accurate picture of the science he knows”
It seems you didn’t read the link I posted. Connolley was banned from wikipedia for 6 months for using his influence to censor any attempts to post articles that dissented from AGW. That sounds more like an activist than a scientist.
I read it, long ago. Connolley was working to prevent crap science from being posted on Wikipedia. That was his job, and he did it well.
@David: His job?!? LOL! LOL! If that was his job, then why did he get banned?
Connolley is smart because Appell said so. Unfortunately, Appell is an idiot so I’m not sure that is the sort of acclamation Connolley can make much use of. 🙂
I lived during the 1970s, and am not interested in revisionism.
The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data.’
The excuse for not having been there is not peer review.
I lived then . You didn’t. You have no idea what you are talking about.
People like you, who are so afraid they can’t even sign their real name to their opinions, get no say about the validity of the work of Fleck, Connolley, et al.
Be a man, for once in your life.
ROFLMAO
I know history as well as you do. The facts are not on your side, no matter what you seem to remember 35 years later.
Be a man.
What were you doing during the April tornado outbreak, and when Nixon resigned?
Everyone knew that temperatures were plummeting, including NCAR, CRU and The National Academy Of Sciences. Youngsters like you and Cook have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
Except the data clearly shows that temperatures weren’t “plummeting”:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
It was a time when scientists were trying to puzzle out the relative contributions of CO2 vs aerosols.
Should I also list for you what else science didn’t know then that it knows now?
Using that tampered data again?
This is what the National Academy of Sciences showed in 1975, before Jim and Phil worked it over.
Do you suppose the conclusions of science might have changed in 40 years? Do you know what, say, physics knows now that it didn’t know then?
I didn’t realize that you needed physics to read a thermometer.
I didn’t realize that reading a thermometer constituted science.
Science is taking a downward trend and converting it into an upward trend – in order to match your idiotic theory.
Science is doing what science does — gather data, analyze it, chew on it, work with it. It keeps moving forward.
That is, of course, what is has always done.
But its conclusions have not been what you want — so you have no alternative but to try and disparage what you don’t like, while lying about yourself. It is an old story, and clowns like you have been losing it for 400 years. You know it, and I know it.
Pussy.
Until 1999, Hansen knew that the US was not warming. Then he suddenly understood that it had been warming catastrophically for the past three decades, but no one had noticed.. ROFL
You have no fucking idea what Hansen thought. Man up.
Actually, I do ROFL
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
You’re not just a coward, but a liar.
The temperature of USA48 last year (55.3 F) set a record by a large margin (1.0 F).
Anyone who thinks the country is not warming, in the face of such evidence, is a complete fool.
The NOAA data (GHCN HCN) shows 2012 and 1934 dead even – before they start tampering. Cheating is not science.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Yes, everyone cheats but you. How convenient.
Strictly speaking, using the Peterson/Connolley/Fleck methodology I can prove there is no global warming consensus either. That’s the fun thing about a methodology that’s designed to support what you think you already knew.
You’ve gone into the historical database of publications? I doubt it..
I’ve looked at it very closely. Have you? Of course not.
Sure. And your results and methodology have been published where, exactly?
Sorry I forgot. Any papers written by political green activists are true. Any papers written by scientists who don’t support your beliefs are wrong and you attack them. And nobody should be critical of what you believe, otherwise you’ll get angry and write another masturbatory blog post about Thought Crime?
😆 good one Will!
“People like you, who are so afraid they can’t even sign their real name to their opinions, get no say about the validity of the work of Fleck, Connolley, et al.
Be a man, for once in your life.”
Knowing their real names has not helped them write intelligently and honestly.
At least they are men, who put their names behind their opinions.
You, or “Steve Goddard,” are not.
Obsess much?
Lol,
It has not helped you either………….
BTW – Is there a lot of Beaver in Beaverton? I may be doing some contract work there.
You do work? I think you just blog all day on your employer’s time, which pretending to do otherwise because you are too afraid to use your real name and too afraid you might lose your precious little paycheck.
>> Knowing their real names has not helped them write intelligently and honestly
It has, at least, shown them to be men, and not cowards.
Whenever you feel like you are getting your butt kicked, you always retreat to the same meme.
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz………
You sure spend a lot of time here anyway because you are insecure with men who are less educated than you.
Ever heard of PROJECTION?
Because it is so reliable — you are afraid to blog under your real name.
I couldn’t live like that. But I guess you can.
You still haven’t answered my question about beaver in Beaverton.
Yes, men less educated than me often appear, well, less educated.
As do you.
I have read Dr. Appells resume at his website and it is impressive but reading him here there is no evidence that this is that man with the listed resume background.
I LIVED through the 1970’s as a teenager and remember the concerns aired about the obvious cooling trend and even TV. programs were aired that showed such concerns about it:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-224.html
Wise up. I too lived through the 1970s as a teenager, and I certainly would never substitute what I thought I knew as a pissy little teenager for what the science showed. Like all teenagers, I didn’t know squat, and neither did you.
That’s weird. And I thought I was doing research at Los Alamos Labs during the 1970s.
Big deal. That doesn’t give you a golden road. Data is data, not what some Los Alamos flunky thinks he remembers 35 yrs later.
You have no idea what I did in the 1970’s.
I own Reid Bryson’s book Climate of Hunger,John Stommels Volcano Weather and also John Imbrie’s book on the Milankovitch cycle that were written in that decade.They were all concerned about the obvious cooling during the 1970’s.
I also read the book The Cooling (1978) that had a fair amount of research in it but written by a non scientist that ran on too much speculation.
But I agree that you were a “prissy teenager” then.
Arctic sea ice expanded 15% during the early 1970’s. It must have not understood Hansenian physics.
Wow, so you read a few books.
You probably read Velikovsky, too — right?
Seems not:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/images/ice_extent.gif
What part of tampered data is confusing to you David? Everyone, including the CIA knew that Arctic Ice had expanded 15% during the early part of the 1970s
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
The CIA doesn’t do science — at best, it gathers what science that is out there.
Let me summarise this exchange:
Steve: “That’s weird. And I thought I was doing research at Los Alamos Labs during the 1970s.”
Appell “Big deal. I was masturbating to my Dad’s playboy mags… or something. That doesn’t make you smarter.”
🙂
“You probably read Velikovsky, too — right?”
Nope.
I own the book that countered Velikovskys book.He pissed a lot of scientists off after Emmanual published his book in 1950 and thus assured his books exposure to the world.
David writes not realizing that he just shot himself in the foot:
“Yes, men less educated than me often appear, well, less educated.
As do you.”
Normally people who have a PH.D science degree would not spend a lot of time in skeptical blogs worrying about Steve’s and my real names because well gee whiz they would use the valuable time at the University in research or teaching instead and also that highly educated people strongly tend to be with other highly educated people.
Again why are you here?
I’m here to prove idiots like you wrong.
You are doing a terrible job of it and Steve just creamed you over what Dr. Hansen said in 1999 using Dr. Hansens own presentation.
Keep it coming David as we are enjoying your gaffes you entertain us with.
That sounds suspiciously like an psychological inadequacy requiring you to feel worthy by bullying those you perceive as less than yourself.
Tell me, how do you feel about your mother?
David writes anothet foot in the mouth comment,
“The CIA doesn’t do science — at best, it gathers what science that is out there.”
Man you are oblivious to what you just did here since the available science in the decade was mostly about the cooling and the impacts it had at the time.
Are you drinking a lot of beer now?
Do you realize that science advances with time?
Do you what to know what else science at that time thought?
* that the human genome has ~100,000 genes
* that there were three quarks
* it had no notion of dark energy
* it had no clue that the expansion of the universe was accelerating
* it had not proved Fermat’s Last Theorem
* it had no notion of quantum computing
* it did not know where particles got their mass
Do you want me to go on?
Ha ha ha,
you are so bad you are good.
Why are you making a complete fool of yourself here since the discussion was what people thought about the climate in the 1970’s IN THE THE 1970’s!
What beer are you drinking?
People were just too stupid to read thermometers or measure ice in the 1970s.
Our recent expeditions to the moon are much more sophisticated than during the Apollo days. – before NASA understood that their primary role was to make Muslims feel happy.
NASA… Muslims… Whatever. You’re a complete fucking idiot.
Man up.
I have half your IP address, and I am working on the other half. When I have it all I will expose you for the coward you are.
So what you are saying is that advances in science since the year 1999 have allowed Hansen to go back in time and convince the 1975 National Academy Of Science that the global cooling they reported was not actually occurring.
What exactly are you smoking, David?
Steve,
I like this part where Dr. Hansen says late in 1999:
“…Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934….”
Which means even 1998 was a cooler year than 1934.
LOL
David is obviously guzzling the beer:
“Man up.
I have half your IP address, and I am working on the other half. When I have it all I will expose you for the coward you are.?”
By now readers is wondering why this obsessive twit with a PH.D in Physics spending a lot of time in a skeptic blog whining about what our names are and using street language in the process.
Put down the beer!
He never did get back to me about the quality of beaver in Beaverton.
No place welcomes liars, if that’s what you mean.
@David: You never answered my question – why did Wikipedia ban Connolley?
You must have money in this – because you are completely irrational.
He is a defender of their faith! 😆
Oh my. This is true comedic genius. This is akin to “Who’s on first?”
Appell is here for the link juice to his website. Can someone please buy some fake traffic for his needle dick website, that may be enough to get rid of this puerile alarmist.
David, in his rebutals, keeps posting contemporary postnormal-science graphs. Thus, his graph on Arctic ice extent shows a flat curve until the recent decline. However, observations from the 20’s and 30’s show that there was a clear-cut decline in ice extent. And this was associated with a dramatic rise in temperatures in the areas at the margins of the ice pack – Spitsbergen, east Greenland, etc. (see for example, Scherhag, Ann. Hydrol. Maritimen Met. 1936).