Replies

I have enjoyed your discussions on this thread. Back in my graduate school days at the University of Colorado, I fell into the orbit of the Atmospheric Scientists at CU, NCAR, and NOAA. I didn't actually give a hoot about climate, I was just trying to understand the Pleistocene; but, I had to collaborate with these guys to work out what was happening with glaciers, sea level, water processes, etc. Some of my observations at the time:

They were very proud of their climate models and the CRAY1 that they had to run them. I thought most of their data input was crap, but they sure liked the output.

They tended to assume lots of variables as constants in order to reduce the complexity of their problem set. Solar radiation was one constant that was particulary popular.

They ignored the oceans. I thought that the oceans might have some importance to the equation: big heat sink, ocean currents, continental drift, etc.; but my musing were rejected. The super thin atmosphere was all that counted. How was I, some simple Geomorphologist supposed to understand.

They were ready to jump to worldwide conclusions based on a very small set of data collected at a very tiny number of locations. I thought they had a good chance of drawing some conclusions on the climate of Boulder, CO over time, but as for the rest...

Of course, back then they were all convinced that the globe was cooling.

Quoting (myself) in post 145:

The Newsweek article was very alarmist in considering the likelihood and danger of global cooling. It referred to the opinions and findings of climatologists and others who were presented as experts. How did this happen?

It occurred to me that Newsweek might have cherry picked quotes and misrepresented science. If true, that would be big black eye for Newsweek.

I went over your posts 120:

Of course, back then they were all convinced that the globe was cooling.

and 140:

One popular notion amongst Glaciologists was that the Antarctic ice cap would reach a critical mass and ...

It seems that Newsweek article represented climatologists and other experts at least somewhat fairly. If these experts were so convinced of global cooling then, and many are so convinced of global warming today, what are we to conclude? A lack of humility? Confusion between firm knowledge and speculation? Ideological or other inappropriate motivations? A deficit in wisdom?

As I review the many excellent posts from all parties, it appears that the subject matter is very complex. There are many variables mentioned, unmentioned, considered, and not yet considered. The influences on the world’s climate are too complex for us to make bold statements. Yet bold statements about “The Cooling World” and “Global Warming” have been made. In my opinion, these exaggerated claims are a disservice to both the better researchers, and to citizens at large.