Posted on 12/16/2009 7:01:09 AM PST by OneVike
Why the climatologists get it wrong.
Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."
Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."
OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?
In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.
In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
“does that mean the article is sticky?”
I guess! You said it in your first post, and I thought the typo was kinda funny! ;^0
Best, Doc
How sunspots were observed “back then”?
From NASA...
The Sunspot Cycle
(Updated 2009/12/08)
Sunspot Numbers
In 1610, shortly after viewing the sun with his new telescope, Galileo Galilei (or was it Thomas Harriot?) made the first European observations of Sunspots. Continuous daily observations were started at the Zurich Observatory in 1849 and earlier observations have been used to extend the records back to 1610. The sunspot number is calculated by first counting the number of sunspot groups and then the number of individual sunspots.
Eisenhower was also the last POTUS to enforce immigration laws in a meaningful way.
The divergence of things that had been closely tracking each other for the prior two cycles indicates that this current cycle may be unusual, and our prior models may not apply.
Going by the NASA/NOAA models, we are way overdue for the upswing of the next cycle (blue is actual, red is predicted):
This is one of the biggest reasons I really love Freerepublic.
It is a treasure trove of knowledge, and we can always count on someone to have a vast arsenal of information at their disposal to build up the defenses we need to fight the good fight and shine the light of truth on an ignorant world.
Thanks for all the graphs and info ST.
I kept the image for future reference. It might be interesting to check out the book to see what the main point of their political philosophy as to how the writer thought we could revers the “Global Cooling Trend”.......
Well..., that's where you've got a mistaken impression then. There wasn't any kind of philosophy that existed back then, even when the scientists observed a real Global Cooling trend -- that this was "Anthropogenic Global Cooling"... LOL...
If you think that, you've got it all wrong.
What they did think back then, was that cooling could possibily continue and we could have either a Little Ice Age, like we did in our own history, or else we could sink further than that.
The idea, back then, was "how to cope with that..."
AND, that's a perfectly legitimate type of thinking, as to how we would cope with something like that, if the trend were to continue.
Likewise, it's legitimate to think of how we would cope with the Global Warming that has happened, if the trend were to continue.
BUT, we now see that we've entered a period of time like the Dalton Minimum, so the proper thinking now is "How do we cope with the cooling down of the temperatures and the loss of crops and the shifting of the grow zones in this county by about 150 or more miles to the south?"
There was nothing wrong with how they were thinking back then. What is wrong now, is not the "recognition of Global Warming" (because that has happened..., or else how did we get out of the idea of an "ice age" back then... LOL) -- but the "wrong thinking" is that we have been subject to "Anthropogenic Global Warming"...
By the way, I do own the DVD documentary, “the Great Global Warming Swindle”, and it is everything you say when it comes to destroying the mythical Global Warming theory of today.
What I find interesting was it was Margarete Thatcher who actually started funding the first studies on GW. Albeit she did it for honorable reasons. Who would have known back then what the left would have done with it.
BTW...The dip there from the 40's to the 70's was why they were talking about another ice age....and the warming you see afte that is why they stopped talking about it. Otherwise, they'd still be talking about an ice age.
This is so hilarious to those who do understand what you're talking about.
INDEED, we would still be talking about freezing to death and another coming ice age -- if -- "Global Warming" had not occurred. It's precisely because Global Warming did occur that we're not still talking about the Ice Age...
How short people's memories are...
The Cooling is coming!!! The Cooling is coming!!!
Oh wait!
The Warming is coming!!! The warming is coming!!!
My how things change yet stay the same.
What I find interesting was it was Margarete Thatcher who actually started funding the first studies on GW. Albeit she did it for honorable reasons. Who would have known back then what the left would have done with it.
Yes, indeed. I noticed that very same thing and thought it was very interesting. It's like "unintended consequences"...
And that Lord Monckton, that many FReepers mention here, was a person who was instrumental in doing that, back during Thatcher's time.
Yes, it is interesting... :-)
You’re welcome... and also thank goodness for the Internet (and Free Republic which uses it...). Without it we would all be isolated and more in the dark... :-)
The climate changes. It warmed after LIA (the Little Ice Age) and we are still a little cooler than the max seen during the MWP. We are currently in a down trend temp wise...and have been for the better part of a decade. Given the declining solar activity...my bets are this decline in temps will continue and we will see temps like we saw in the 50's - 70's for a while.
We are overdue for the onset of the next glaciation...but this all happens on such a long-term scale...our GG-grandchildren will be long gone before anyone will know for sure.
The graph below disturbs me ...
I'll give the description that went along with it, on that webpage for the other readers.
I also included another article (up above) which questioned if sunspots were going to disappear (they meant... "for good" ... LOL).
Do I know what's going on in the natural cycle of things (and maybe the "unnatural cycle" of things)... no... :-)
This picture depicts the last three solar cycles as measured in solar irradiance, sunspot numbers, solar flare activity, and 10.7 cm radio flux. Solar irradiance, i.e the direct solar power at the top of the Earth's atmosphere, is depicted as both a daily measurement and a moving annual average. All other data are depicted as the annual average value.
The ~11 year solar magnetic cycle is a fundemental aspect of the sun's behavior and is associated with variations in total output and activity. Irradiance measurements have only been available during the last three cycles and are based on a composite of many different observing satellites. [1] However, the high correlation between irradiance measurements and other proxies of solar activity make it reasonable to estimate past solar activity. Most important among these proxies is the record of sunspot observations that has been recorded since ~1610. Since sunspots and associated faculae are directly responsible for small changes in the brightness of the sun, they are closely correlated to changes in solar output. Direct measurements of radio emissions from the sun also provide a proxy of solar activity that can be measured from the ground since such solar radiation is not substantially affected by the atmosphere. Lastly, solar flares are a type of solar activity that can impact life on Earth by affecting electrical systems, especially satellites. Flares only occur in the presence of sunspots, and hence the two are correlated, but flares are not directly tied to total solar luminosity.
Recently, it appears that solar irradiance is varying in ways that aren't duplicated by changes in sunspot observations or radio emissions. However, this conclusion is disputed. Some believe that shifts in irradiance may be the result of calibration problems in the measuring satellites.[1][2] These speculations also admit the possibility that a small long term trend might exist in solar irradiance, though the data chosen for this plot do not have a significant trend.[3] Also, the differences in flare activity over the three cycles would not be related to possible measurement artifacts in irradiance.
With respect to global warming, though solar activity has been at relatively high levels during the recent period, the fact that solar activity has been near constant during the last 30 years precludes solar variability from playing a large role in recent warming. It is estimated that the resdiual effects of the prolonged high solar activity account for between 18 and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999.[4]
Thanks for your help here on Free Republic with this subject. It’s good to hear from an honest-to-goodness meteorologist... :-)
Oh wait!
The Warming is coming!!! The warming is coming!!!
Ummmm..., you're "one cycle behind"... LOL... You gotta do one more and say...
"The Cooling is coming!!! The cooling is coming!!!
[we're now going into, at least, a "Dalton Minimum" type of period... shhh... don't tell anyone...]
“Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed “the coming ice age.”
“
Nope, I remember it clearly. They preached global cooling. They also preached we’d all be dead from starvation by the year 2000. They preached the planet could not support 6 billion people, no way, no how. They also preached we would be out of oil by 1990.
Liberals are nothing but Luddites. Their little itty-bitty brains can’t handle technology so they desire the Stone Age. Funny thing, though, liberals love to live in cities.
"And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:16-20
The (insert global change of choice here) is coming!
The (insert global change of choice here) is coming!
LOL
Excellent thread BTW!
We all understand, but fortunately most of us recognize propaganda, and Rodney King 'science.'
During your 'warm' period, here in the frigid SF Bay Area for example, we had what had been in the past unusual long hard freezes in January of '90,'91, and'92. In '91 we had a koi pond that remained solid ice for three weeks. Warming would have been truly welcome. Throughout the '90s except for '92 and '97, our June temps failed to reach 90 degrees, rather than the low 100s that had been normal until '87. This remains typical for our June weather still. Its like the thermostat got turned back by two months.
Stifle yourself, E-dit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.