Global Warming Deniers Become More Desperate By the Day

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: guohua

Two points:

1) Wikipedia
2) Some 50 out of hundreds of thousands - I'll take the majority vote on this one since all life is dependent on it.

The socialists control the government and the press.

Except for global warming, of course. *sarcasm*

a reply to: FyreByrd

Didn't we already done a poll about global warming and no one on ATS gave a ish about the fake science?

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: guohua

All about surface temperature. Add in ocean temperature.

Add in net mantle movements against the crust, and whether the wobble of the Earth matches the variations in solar out put and motion, the variations of lunar motion, and whatever the magnetic field of the Earth is doing, etc...

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: FyreByrd

Didn't we already done a poll about global warming and no one on ATS gave a ish about the fake science?

Well, pardon me, if I don't go along with the herd - ehrn, the in crowd.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: mbkennel

There was NO previous scientific consensus about man-made global cooling!

The 70's scientists were economists and political scientists who claimed that energy should be rationed because we would run out when the climate turned colder.

You mean, people thinking of the consequences of what would happen if there was significant cooling? What's the problem with that?

Back then economists and political scientists didn't pretend to be climatologists, unlike now. IF there was going to be significant cooling, then yes you would need to lower energy consumption and increase insulation because all else being equal consumption for heating might increase.

Thinking about contingencies is a good use of expert brain power. At that time, the 1970's, the climate had been cooling for 20 years or so. I remember back then, rain puddles would commonly freeze over night.

However, what was happening was pro government propaganda. Every news show talked about the energy crisis with a subtext of the world is going to freeze, get ready to obey parental government. An short allusion to doom if the free market wasn't socialized advertised itself at the beginning of every science text book. Unavoidable rationing was also mentioned.

As soon as the cold spell ended, the socialists started on global warning. It stands to reason that the climate will get warmer after it has been colder. I guess they discovered some success in imparting a doom for sure, someday, message.

Again your focus on "socialists" and seeing propaganda. People, not physics.

What was happening:

In the 1970's, yes there was a bit of a cooling trend---now known to be in significant measure from aerosols from fossil fuel pollution. And simultaneously, sources of fossil fuels started to be constrained geologically---the US reached peak oil in the early 1970's, and nobody had any clue (except for a few experts like Hubbard who predicted just that and were ignored) that it would ever happen. Oil production started going down and down, despite more investment, for the first time in the history of the USA. And oil prices increased dramatically.

What changed things around? In the 80's, Discovery and exploitation of oil in Alaska and the North Sea (these are now both in terminal decline) and the agreement from the Saudi's to lower oil prices to bankrupt the USSR.

Guess what: petroleum is still geologically finite. We're just better at getting out the last bits.

As soon as the cold spell ended, the socialists started on global warning. It stands to reason that the climate will get warmer after it has been colder. I guess they discovered some success in imparting a doom for sure, someday, message.

Once again, assuming the motives and results of scientists stems from their essential socialism! No, scientists are hardly all socialists, but today they are turning into liberals after unwarranted vehement attacks on them from the right. In the 1970's, leftists hated scientists.

What was actually happening in the science (note there was no scientific consensus on 1970's global cooling and the continuation of the trend) was that actual government regulation to reduce certain forms of pollution---a clear danger to human health and personal enjoyment---reduced the short term cooling effect from the aerosols, and the longer term trend upwards from greenhouse effect started to become more and more apparent. And yes back in the 1970's actual scientists were very aware of the greenhouse effect and man's increase of radiative forcing from fossil fuel burning.

Actual science, and facts of the geophysical properties of the planet does and should come first. Mother Nature has no need to split the difference politically on anything.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: guohua

All about surface temperature. Add in ocean temperature.

Add in net mantle movements against the crust, and whether the wobble of the Earth matches the variations in solar out put and motion, the variations of lunar motion, and whatever the magnetic field of the Earth is doing, etc...

So you have models showing global warming forcing from variations in lunar motion, and the quantitative mechanistic explanations backed by extensive experimental and theoretical work?

And just by discovering new physical effects, it doesn't change the reality of the existing known effects.

a reply to: mbkennel

So you have models showing global warming forcing from variations in lunar motion, and the quantitative mechanistic explanations backed by extensive experimental and theoretical work?

I don't know about Semicollegiate, but Scientists do and experimental and theoretical work in the field is anything but new.

Charles Keeling was one of the more prominent scientists proposing a Moon-Climate connection.

Although we have delved into properties of the tides in some detail to test whether a correlation of tidal strength with temperature exists, much more might be accomplished by a closer attention to the possible physical basis for the correlations found. Until now, to mount such an effort has not seemed worthwhile, given the small perceived likelihood that any lunisolar tidal connection to climate exists.

We have only touched upon a possible cause by proposing that strong tides increase vertical mixing in the oceans and thereby episodically cool the sea surface. Also, we have explored in detail only 6- to 10-year periodicities seen in records of both temperature and tidal forcing. We propose, nevertheless, that the near synchronicities seen at these periodicities argue sufficiently in favor of a tidal-forcing hypothesis, to justify further investigation of a possible tidal mechanism of temperature and climate variability.

www.pnas.org...

Three years later.

Looking ahead, a prediction of ‘‘pronounced global warming’’ over the next few decades by Broecker, presumed to be triggered by the warm phase of an 80-year climatic cycle of unidentified origin, would be reinterpreted as the continuation of natural warming in roughly centennial increments that began at the end of the Little Ice Age, and will continue in spurts for several hundred years.

Even without further warming brought about by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, this natural warming at its greatest intensity would be expected to exceed any that has occurred since the first millennium of the Christian era, as the 1,800-year tidal cycle progresses from climactic cooling during the 15th century to the next such episode in the 32nd century.

www.pnas.org...

scholar.google.de...

For someone as interested in the physical mechanisms that drive climate change, as you are, i'd be surprised if this was all new to you.

In the 1970's, leftists hated scientists.

That's a weird statement. "Leftists" hated Buckminster Fuller, Sagan, Chomsky, Ehrlich, Hayes etc.? I don't think you would be able to make a compelling case that hatred was the general attitude towards scientists by the political left of 1970's.

a reply to: Millers

A nice article.

What is the conclusion? If this turns out to be justified then the predictions from increased radiative forcing will be an underestimate of the upcoming warming over a few hundred years, because we are adding on additional forcing to this astrophysical cycle. (notice the periodicity is 1800 years, not 30 years).

a reply to: mbkennel


If the predictions for an increased radiative forcing were correct, then this would be a possible conclusion. But the predicted radiative effect on atmospheric warming is already overestimated.

Our next objective is to describe the periodicities of extremely strong tidal events. In so doing we do not wish to imply that single tidal events are likely to be responsible for modulating sea surface temperature worldwide.

They may be important, however, because they identify times of generally great tidal dissipation of kinetic energy, which could modulate temperature by means of an ensemble of events over days or even years.


The motions of the Earth and Moon, although periodic, do not produce truly periodic strong tidal events, because these events require the near coincidence of four incommensurate recurring astronomical relationships, namely syzygy, perigee, eclipse, and perihelion.

This circumstance, although adding complexity to the analysis, may, however, be an asset in proving a connection between tides and temperature, because interrupted or transient tidal periodicities should produce characteristic signatures of tidal forcing in temperature records.

The relationship between tidal forcing and vertical mixing of the ocean is inherently non-linear, any quantitative effect would depend on all factors involved in the process. As i understand it, modulations in tidal forcing are necessary to explain (some) variations in the mechanically forced component of oceanic meridional overturning, which directly effects surface temperatures.

I think the most promising aspect of a better understanding of a moon-climate connection, is the potential for a closer definition of the physical mechanisms that drive ocean-atmosphere coupled processes.

I'm just glad this obstructionist garbage wasn't as big a deal when we were getting lead out of gas. If that happened today I can't see it succeeding.

I'm just glad that people learned about the dangers of smoking so many years ago. If that happened today I can't see it succeeding.

I'm just glad we took some measures to control fluoro carbon output so many years ago. I can't see that working today.

Coprorate 'science' is really due a win with that track record /eyeroll

Unprecedent heat here in southern Brazil today! 38ºC (100.4ºF) near the coast! Many monthly records broken in many locations in my state! It should be emphasized that we´re in winter here and there's nearly one more month to spring. Above 29ºC temperatures in august are already considered abnormally high. 38ºC is absolutely crazy!