The Sun Is So Boring.....

[andyc (Andy)]

Oh goody, yet another myth from Renato... the 1970s cooling myth. Dammit, I can't resist responding one last time. Heck, there's even a research paper dedicated to scotching that myth! Peterson et al 2008, published in BAMS, explores that one.

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

The summary above is from the appropriate Skeptical Science page, and you can read the original paper linked above if you have the stomach, Renato. You've been through a good half dozen myths already, I dread to think how many more of the 176 skeptical arguments, you're going to bring up in the mistaken thought that they support your case.

By the end of the 1970s the Charney Report (1979) was published, and there has been little real scientific doubt about the basics since then. Just read the foreword! Many details, of course, had to be worked out, and of course the main thrust of recent warming hadn't yet happened!

What is it with some engineers, who think that they can waltz into a subject about which they know virtually nothing, and pronounce the entire field not only wrong, but the grandest conspiracy in the history of mankind? If you asked 100 climate scientists whether a damaged bridge was structurally sound and 50 said yes and 50 said no, you'd rightly conclude that they didn't understand the topic. I don't go to engineers get my teeth checked, I don't ask engineers if the mole on my shoulder is cancer or not, but apparently I'm supposed to ask an engineer if climate science is right?

While we're on the topic of the 97%, there are at least three previous surveys that all come to the basically same conclusion as Cook et al 2013 - you have Oreskes 2004, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, and Anderegg et al 2010. Strangely the skeptics never seem to do any surveys of their own, scotching this one... they are just content to snipe from the sidelines on blogs. But then the 3% don't agree with each other!! They haven't come up with any coherent alternate explanations either to explain the increasing ocean heat content (e.g. Levitus 2012), the spectral changes at the top of the atmosphere (e.g. Harries 2001), the concept of signal and noise in climate (e.g. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011) and all the myriad other consilient lines of evidence that they are unwilling to accept.


But I'm sure Renato will find plenty of reasons to dismiss these as everything else just as in el_draco's example below. And that refusal to engage with evidence is why it's not worth the discussion.

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by andyc

Oh goody, yet another myth from Renato... the 1970s cooling myth. Dammit, I can't resist responding one last time. Heck, there's even a research paper dedicated to scotching that myth! Peterson et al 2008, published in BAMS, explores that one.

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

The summary above is from the appropriate Skeptical Science page, and you can read the original paper linked above if you have the stomach, Renato. You've been through a good half dozen myths already, I dread to think how many more of the 176 skeptical arguments, you're going to bring up in the mistaken thought that they support your case.

By the end of the 1970s the Charney Report (1979) was published, and there has been little real scientific doubt about the basics since then. Just read the foreword! Many details, of course, had to be worked out, and of course the main thrust of recent warming hadn't yet happened!

What is it with some engineers, who think that they can waltz into a subject about which they know virtually nothing, and pronounce the entire field not only wrong, but the grandest conspiracy in the history of mankind? If you asked 100 climate scientists whether a damaged bridge was structurally sound and 50 said yes and 50 said no, you'd rightly conclude that they didn't understand the topic. I don't go to engineers get my teeth checked, I don't ask engineers if the mole on my shoulder is cancer or not, but apparently I'm supposed to ask an engineer if climate science is right?

While we're on the topic of the 97%, there are at least three previous surveys that all come to the basically same conclusion as Cook et al 2013 - you have Oreskes 2004, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, and Anderegg et al 2010. Strangely the skeptics never seem to do any surveys of their own, scotching this one... they are just content to snipe from the sidelines on blogs. But then the 3% don't agree with each other!! They haven't come up with any coherent alternate explanations either to explain the increasing ocean heat content (e.g. Levitus 2012), the spectral changes at the top of the atmosphere (e.g. Harries 2001), the concept of signal and noise in climate (e.g. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011) and all the myriad other consilient lines of evidence that they are unwilling to accept.


But I'm sure Renato will find plenty of reasons to dismiss these as everything else just as in el_draco's example below. And that refusal to engage with evidence is why it's not worth the discussion.

Well, this is a new one.

What I and several score university undergraduates had to sit through and learn - at the time, as part of our engineering degrees -was a myth, a figment of our imagination. And you cite a paper written over 30 years later to prove it.

Plainly you were not around then, or if you were you did not read the attempts to hype the scare, nor watch them on TV. Wikipedia documents the alarmist Newsweek and Time cover articles, and even the Leonard Nimoy's TV documentary on it at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Who do you think was feeding this alarmism to the media? Some journalists who woke up one morning with nothing to write about, or climate scientists?

And what is it with climate scientists rewriting history? You can type "Medieval Warm Period" in Google and come across several sites which claim it was a myth, as proved by Michael Mann. And now one can type "Global Cooling" and find out that it too was a myth. Plainly the premise is that people are stupid.

Citing papers that predate and you claim support Cook's paper on the 97% consensus, is all very nice. Did they do it openly and explain their methodology, and make all their data available for perusal and scrutiny, or are they withholding data and threatening to sue people who want to examine their stuff too?

I notice that you don't want to address this deliberate withholding of information and methodology - it's not on some blogger site that you instantly dismiss (unless of course it's Cook's blog site) - but it's in a National newspaper.

And you keep citing John Cook's "Skeptical Science" blog.
In my opinion,
You know that the name is a deliberate deception, and it should be more appropriately named "Church of Hard Core Global Warming" since it contains nothing skeptical in it, and
plainly, the name is intended to mislead readers doing internet searches, and that deception is part and parcel of the method of operation of various climate science types,
and you happily accept the misleading name and promulgate it.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Ah... engineer...., nuclear reactors.. The vested interest angle.

Surprise, surprise. Here is another one, I agree with you. Traditional fast breeders are a liability, give me something better and you have an argument worth listening to. Try key words like "Thorium" and "Fusion" which, by the way, I know are not the same.... However, base load can be derived from renewables as well.... now that's an engineering solution worth pursuing....

Stop crapping on about global warming being a fiction, its FACT and use your engineering skills to come up with a solution that does not include 3 mile island like scenarios. The technology could work, why don't you spend your time promoting the non-melt down versions instead of wasting time

... and by the way, Tasmania is about as far from "oblivion" as you can get. Last time I saw the mainland I couldn't stand the stink..., (No offense to the rest of you....), crowds, pollution, noise, agro, stress etc. couldn't wait to get back to "The real world". If you check out the reality of the situation, the more you build up the rest of the world, the harder it gets to maintain.... classic deck of cards. I'd love it if the rest of the world could catch up to Tassie. I can go to places of ABSOLUTE silence, that are clean. Mind you, our current F*witt premier wants us to emulate whats already proven to be a failure. He's next on the hit list and wont last his term.

Plainly, regardless of what you profess, you have no interest in saving the planet. The time for action is supposed to be now - nice nuclear power is already doing it's bit in Europe. When all those hopeless green energy power supplies fail, the countries have to ask France to pump some real power from its nuclear plants into their grids.

If we ever do join the European ETS, I hope someone builds a power cable from France to Australia.

I think the figures are that half the population of Tasmania are currently on some kind of welfare benefits. The more pristine the State gets, the higher the welfare money that comes from the rest of us in the dirty States that you seem to despise.

Plainly, at the last election, most Tasmanians decided that it couldn't go on and they'd had enough. I've seen in Italy parents despairing that their kids can't get jobs. I can't imagine that Tasmanians in general wouldn't be equally worried about their kids' futures.
Regards,
Renato