NationalTitles15 said:

Other scientists:
Holdren - He did. He was also nutty as a fruitcake at the time, endorsing forced sterilization, eugenics, etc.


Ehrlich - "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the last century our burning of fossil fuels raised the level some 15%. The greenhouse effect today is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants that tend to keep the energy of the sun from warming the Earth in the first place.

At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."This is neutral.


Budyko - "Due to the rising use of fossil fuels, at some time "comparatively soon (probably not later than a hundred years)... a substantial rise in air temperature will take place." 1972. You're wrong here. Budyko and his work supported the consensus.


National Academy of Sciences - "The average surface air temperature in the northern hemisphere increased from the 1880's until about 1940 and has been decreasing thereafter."

"If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of CO2."

"We do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course [so] it does not seem possible to predict climate."

"The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know." This is also neutral.



Milankovich - Milankovitch died in 1958. Present a quote, if you would.


and many many others. Name them

Click to expand...

NationalTitles15 said:

Yes, scientists at the time knew that man could potentially alter the environment with either carbon emissions (warming effect) or with dust/aerosols(cooling effects). But the overwhelming consensus at the time was that climate was mostly naturally driven or that man's impacts would be short term.

Click to expand...

Source this claim. I find it hilarious in light of the quotes I provided from Budyko and Erlich above.

NationalTitles15 said:

A number of scientists agreed that not only has the earth cooled from 1940, but that the current interglacial warm period would eventually end whether 10 years or 1,000 years onward and some thought the changes they had seen could be the beginning of that change back to glacial times. There is overwhelming evidence to support the contention that most scientists at the time thought something along those lines in the 60's to early or mid to late 70's with a growing number becoming increasingly convinced that CO2 would become the dominant factor. You can't change history.

Click to expand...

No. But I can ask you to present this "OVERWHELMING" evidence.

CajunCrimson said:

Exactly -- why do lefties care so much about the planet hundreds of years in the future? I've yet to figure that out. There's no logical reason for it.....

I get the thrill of "The Blame Game" for them.....

But, not one of them will be on the planet over the next 100+ years....in all likelihood neither will their children.....and if you are old enough to have Grandchildren - they are likely not around in 100 years either.

So, what's the reason for the caring?

Click to expand...

Wow, dude. Do you also pee on the seats on public toilets?

In all seriousness, I have kids aged 10, 8 and 6. Not far out of the realm of possibility I will have family I will have met in person alive a century from now.

CajunCrimson said:

I think if they are 110 and still alive, they won't be worried about the temperature being a little hot, or cold, or wet, or dry, or whatever it is that ya'll say is going to happen.

Click to expand...

Lordy, you've got off the rails. So your asking us why we're not being jerks and leaving behind a mess like it's somebody else's problem and you're bad at math to boot.

Say my six year old has a child at thirty. That would mean my grandchild would be born in 2039-2040 and would place me at the ripe old age of 55. I may live into my 60s or 70s. If that child makes it into their 70s, that will be right under a century for a person who knew me. My wife and I are also planning to try one more time for a boy within the next ten years, so bump it back accordingly.

See? Plausible.

CajunCrimson said:

You lose credibility with anything you type, simply because of your loyalty to the Toilet Paper fetish group eat of Montgomery

Click to expand...

The fact that my loyalty to Auburn bothers you so much is a never ending source of mirth for me. :tongue:

Keep 'em coming.

Holdren and Ehrlich co-authored a book chapter on the subject. If you are truly interested, get off the beaten path and research it yourself. I have neither the time nor the energy to teach an unwilling pupil. There are a multitude of books, articles, and documentaries on the subject from the period in question. They have not all been purged from the earth or even the internet. Much like Holdren and Hanson, many who either thought an ice age was coming or whose models left out CO2 due to the thought it was not an important variable later changed their minds. That does not change the fact that what they said then was what they said then. But you will likely peruse your usual venues and ignore the dirty icky sites that hold these quotes out in the open. Confirmation bias is real.

Lord have mercy what a fact averse post this is. Where to begin.

CajunCrimson said:

But that's the rub....you assume the world is leaving a mess because it gets a little hot.

Click to expand...

A "little hot" leads to a whole host of ecological issues. A few degrees can make all of the difference in the world. We're already seeing it. The ice caps are melting. The oceans are warming and acidifying. Etc.

An analogy. Your body temperature will typically hover around 37 degrees Celsius. How do you feel when you spike a fever? It's only a degree or two! A few percent more than what you're used to! What difference does "being a little hot" make?

CajunCrimson said:

Yet, the alarmists are the same group that wants abortions to help control the population. And they want stricter gun control laws, yet we can't keep drugs or illegals from coming Over the border at will. They also want free stuff for everyone, yet at some point after you've sacrificed freedom to pay for it all...

And 100 years from now, if we have it your way, or we have it mine.....which do you think is more likely to leave a mess?

When you have a generation conditioned to accept everything, then nothing is unacceptable. When nothing is unacceptable, it all breaks down fast.

If things are destroyed in 100 years, it won't be because of the temperature, it will be because there is nothing holding it together. The binds are being severed be misplaced ideals and there is a focus on things that are not all that important.

Click to expand...

This portion makes no sense at all. Focus on the argument at hand. You know nothing about me or my positions on these issues. Even then, your goofball inferences are nothing more than an idiotically applied deflection. The fallacy of relative privation.

I've noticed you moved away from discussing the science. Why is that?

No shot at my school? Son, I am disappoint.

NationalTitles15 said:

Holdren and Ehrlich co-authored a book chapter on the subject.

Click to expand...

That quote I provided from Ehrlich is directly from his 1968 book The Population Bomb. Can you provide a statement from him contradicting it or not?

I must also point out something that you seem not to have realized. Ehrlich is not a climatologist. He is a biologist.

NationalTitles15 said:

If you are truly interested, get off the beaten path and research it yourself. I have neither the time nor the energy to teach an unwilling pupil. There are a multitude of books, articles, and documentaries on the subject from the period in question. They have not all been purged from the earth or even the internet.

Click to expand...

Your claim. You provide proof. If you are not willing, then withdraw it.

NationalTitles15 said:

Much like Holdren and Hanson, many who either thought an ice age was coming or whose models left out CO2 due to the thought it was not an important variable later changed their minds. That does not change the fact that what they said then was what they said then.

Click to expand...

I hope you're not referring to James Hansen. If you are, you have been sold a bill of goods that ain't no good.

NationalTitles15 said:

But you will likely peruse your usual venues and ignore the dirty icky sites that hold these quotes out in the open. Confirmation bias is real.

Click to expand...

Your claim. You provide proof. If you are not willing, then withdraw it.

AUDub said:

That quote I provided from Ehrlich is directly from his 1968 book The Population Bomb. Can you provide a statement from him contradicting it or not?

I must also point out something that you seem not to have realized. Ehrlich is not a climatologist. He is a biologist.



Your claim. You provide proof. If you are not willing, then withdraw it.



I hope you're not referring to James Hansen. If you are, you have been sold a bill of goods that ain't no good.



Your claim. You provide proof. If you are not willing, then withdraw it.

Click to expand...

Not many true climatologists back then when you think about it. Then it was a hodgepodge of professions from biologists to geologists to oceanographers to whatever. They began tring to bridge the gaps between professions due to growing concern of man's impact on climate. It was all very disjointed then. There were warmers and coolers and steady staters. Climate was thought of more in regional terms than global terms. That changed over time.
(https://www.aip.org/history/climate/climogy.htm)

In the fields relating to climate, as in other sciences, textbooks and review articles in ever growing numbers summarized the recent findings of this or that specialty for the benefit of outsiders. More and more conferences were held with the aim of bringing together anywhere from a dozen to several hundred people from different but relevant fields. ThMost scientists, however, continued to call themselves oceanographers or computer scientists or paleobotanists or whatever. Not many would identify themselves as primarily a... a what? A "climate change scientist?"There was not even an accepted term to describe the non-discipline. The typical landmarks for the creation of a discipline, such as departments at universities or a scientific society named for the subject, never came. The key elements for any profession — socialization and employment, which for scientists usually meant training as a graduate student and employment as a professor — were largely carried out within traditional disciplines like meteorology or oceanography, or in more broadly defined fields such as atmospheric sciences in which climate change was included only as one element among many.

Click to expand...

The new thinking was displayed in full at a 1965 symposium held in Boulder, Colorado on "Causes of Climate Change." While the meeting made little special impression at the time, in retrospect it was a landmark. For it deliberately brought together scientists from a fantastic variety of fields, experts in everything from volcanoes to sunspots. Presiding over the meeting was an oceanographer, Roger Revelle. Lectures and roundtable discussions were full of spirited debate as rival theories clashed, and Revelle needed all his exceptional leadership skills to keep the meeting on track.(33) Convened mainly to discuss explanations of the ice ages, the conference featured a burst of new ideas about physical mechanisms that could bring surprisingly rapid climate shifts. In his formal summary of the discussions, the respected climatologist Murray Mitchell reported that our "comparatively amicable interlude" of warmth might give way to another ice age, and sooner than had been supposed. That foreboding possibility required scientists to understand the causes of climate change, he said, and to suggest how we might use technology to intervene.(34)
This sort of thinking spread widely in the early 1970s. A spate of devastating droughts and other weather disasters showed that climate was grossly unreliable. With the alarming news came warnings that the near future might see still worse — whether drastic cooling or global warming — thanks to pollution of the atmosphere following the explosive growth of human population and industry. This was an active and even aggressive view of climate in relation to humanity; it called for aggressive research. "The old descriptive climatology," an authority remarked in 1975, "concerned mainly with statistics and verbal interpretation of them, is evolving into a new mathematical, or dynamic, climatology with predictive capability based on physical-mathematical processes rather than extrapolation of statistical measures."(35)

Click to expand...

Another field of study produced even more telling news. By the mid 1970s, analysis of layers of clay extracted from the seabed gave unassailable evidence that ice ages had come and gone in a 100,000-year cycle, closely matching Milankovitch's astronomical computations of periodic shifts in the Earth's orbit.(87) Yet the subtle orbital changes in the amount of sunlight that reached the Earth seemed far too small to have a direct effect on climate. The only reasonable explanation was that there were other natural cycles that resonated at roughly the same timescale. The minor variations of external sunlight evidently served as a "pacemaker" that pinned down the exact timing of internally-driven feedback cycles.

<=Climate cycles

What were the natural cycles that fell into step with the shifts of sunlight? The most obvious suspect was the continental ice sheets. It took many thousands of years for snowfall to build up until the ice began to flow outward. A related suspect was the solid crust of the Earth. On a geological scale it was not truly solid, but flowed like tar. The crust sluggishly sagged where the great masses of ice weighed it down, and sluggishly rebounded when the ice melted. (Scandinavia, relieved of its icy burden some twenty thousand years ago, is still rising a few millimeters a year.) Since the 1950s, scientists had speculated that the timing of glacial periods might be set by these slow plastic flows, the spreading of ice and the warping of crustal rock.(88) Starting around the mid 1970s, scientists in a variety of institutions around the world, from Tasmania to Vladivostok, devised numerical models that indicted how 100,000-year cycles might be driven by feedbacks among ice buildup and flow, with the associated movements of the Earth's crust, albedo changes, and rise or fall of sea level. They rarely agreed on the details of their models, which of necessity included speculative elements.(89) But taken as a group, the numerical models made it plausible that ice-sheet feedbacks could somehow amplify even the weak Milankovitch sunlight changes (and perhaps other slight variations too?) into full-blown ice ages. Many scientists had converted by now to a new view of climate. No longer did they see it as a passive system responding to the (name your favorite) driving force. Now they saw climate as almost a living thing, a complex of numerous interlocking feedbacks prone to radical self-sustaining changes. It might even be so delicately balanced that some changes would be "chaotic," unpredictable. To be sure, many people stuck to earlier views. In 1976 the Director-General of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office told the public that "sensational warnings of imminent catastrophe" were utterly without foundation. "The atmosphere is a robust system with a built-in capacity to counteract any perturbation," he insisted.(90) That was becoming a minority opinion.

Click to expand...

The models gave important results: the net effect of injecting aerosols would be global cooling.

<=Radiation math

Confidence in the results was bolstered when James Hansen's group used a simple model to compute the temporary cooling caused by the haze from a volcano that had erupted back in 1963; their results matched real-world data remarkably well. In particular, the model calculated that the higher layer of atmosphere (the "stratosphere") should temporarily warm up while the lower atmosphere cooled, which was just what had been observed. To be sure, knowledge of aerosols was so uncertain, and the normal fluctuations in climate were so great, that the volcano "experiment" could not prove anything for certain. "Nevertheless," as one reviewer commented, "the good agreement is rather satisfying."(93)

Click to expand...

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate

• 
  [*=left]S. I. Rasool1,
  [*=left]S. H. Schneider1

+Author Affiliations

• [SUP]1[/SUP]Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, New York 10025

• ABSTRACT

Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

Click to expand...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138.abstract

“U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.”The scientist was S.I.Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen’s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.
The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that “in the next 50 years” — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.”
If sustained over “several years, five to 10,” or so Mr. Rasool estimated, “such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

Click to expand...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/

I believe I did misspeak on Hansen. His Venus computer model was used. Rasool and Schneider (?) controlled the inputs.

There, again, are numerous articles from the time period quoting scientists about a coming ice age and a continuing cooling trend. They are not that hard to find.

Abstract

This report reviews the findings on pollutant emissions, removal processes, and pollutant concentrations, as well as some aspects of climatic change. It is shown that emissions from agricultural burning in the tropics exceed significantly U.S. annual emission rates. The direct anthropogenic global particle production amounts to about 7% of that naturally produced. More than 70% of the man-made particles are in the form of gaseous precursors. The anthropogenic contribution to the total global particle production is about 15%. Natural emissions of particulates and CO, CO2, CH4, H2S, NO2, and NH3 exceed man-made emissions by orders of magnitude. Only SO2 is produced predominantly by human activities. Emission estimates, especially those of CO, CO2, CH4, NH3, and N2O, differ greatly among the different investigators. The major removal processes of particulate and gaseous pollutants in the troposphere and stratosphere are reviewed. Trends and current levels of particulate and gaseous pollutants for urban and background stations are discussed. The tropospheric and stratospheric global monitoring programs are outlined. The discussion of changes in the upper atmosphere centers around stratospheric aerosols CO2, CO, CH4, H2O, and O3. The relative effects of nuclear tests, SST flights, and propellants and refrigerants are discussed. Recent hypotheses of ozone destruction by chlorofluoromethanes and bromines are presented. Next evidence of climatic change is given. Natural and man-made external causes of climatic change, including fluctuations in solar emission, orbital changes, changes in CO2, dust, and land use, and internal causes of climatic change, which include Antarctic ice surges, decreases in ocean salinity, and almost intransitivity, are discussed. All these factors are interrelated via complicated feedback mechanisms. Hypotheses concerning the physical causes, the time scales, and the initial stages of ice ages are reviewed. It appears that major ice ages seem to occur every 100,000 yr and that after an interglacial interlude we are on the brink of a period of colder climate. It has been estimated that the mean temperature of the planetary atmosphere in its surface layers has decreased by about 0.3°C since the 1940's despite an 11% increase of CO2 above the nineteenth century preindustrial level of 290 ppm. It appears that the natural climatic cooling trend is roughly 3 times more powerful than the present influence of CO2. However, in the near future, far-reaching adverse climatic and ecological consequences can be expected because the CO2 increase is too rapid for the regulatory mechanisms of the oceans. The impact of an increasing aerosol loading cannot be assessed reliably yet. The net effect will probably be small or one of warming. Presently, the heat release of the order of 15–20 TW from global energy production is still relatively small. But with the continuation of the present energy growth rate, within one generation, waste heat production may reach 100–300 TW, an amount found sufficient in natural processes to cause climatic changes. Some problems related to land use changes are also discussed, especially overgrazing, which may lead to desertification, and tropical deforestation, which may alter the atmospheric circulation.

Click to expand...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/RG014i003p00429/abstract

The unusual warmth of the period will eventually give way to a colder climate according to the NAS.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf

Whether or not these works, articles, opinions, or general views were later invalidated is of no consequence to the question of whether scientists at the time thought these things were possible or likely (ice age) or were products of natural variation that would overwhelm man's input into the climate. There was an awful lot of discussion at the time about a possible coming ice age and not just in popular writings. The popular writing did often quote scientists. Was there hype? I'm sure there was. Not too different from today. I found the waste heat idea interesting.

Whatever the case I have frankly spent too much of my time looking around the interwebs for these things and won't soon be doing it again. Don't know why I did it this time. I guess I am slower to change than I had hoped. It's hard to change someone's mind when they already have it made up and actively resist anything that challenges their preconceived notions. Why would I think that presenting evidence to support my case that thoughts of a steady state global climate or one that was driven by natural forces or fears of a coming ice age were widespread during the general time period would change your mind? Surely you've been exposed to these things and rejected them. Before the 60's there was very little peer reviewed research. That only slowly grew over time. To restrict studying the prevailing thoughts of scientists at the time to peer reviewed research in a field that didn't exist at all in its present day form seems counterintuitive to actually understanding what was happening at the time in the climate sciences. The research on climate change was just really getting started. And was mainly centered around geopolitical consequences. So much has changed in the field since that time. It was, as they say, a different world. It operated much differently than today. So the same methods that work well today may not apply to the period. IOW, peer reviewed research is the norm today, but the field was quite nascent then. Predicting climate was new and the need to do so was again brought about by geopolitical concerns. First there was inertia. Then there were false starts. Is runaway warming a false start? I don't know. Neither does anyone else. In due time we will find out.

CajunCrimson said:

So, even if you are 100% right....can you prove to anyone that there is a solution that will be guaranteed to work? Because I would bet that if you polled these same scientists about what solution they would suggest would be best, I would guess you would see no consensus....

Click to expand...

I'm generally of this school of thought. I certainly do believe that CO2 absorbs radiation and that it is one of many many factors that go into influencing temperatures on Earth. But assuming CO2 is a dastardly pollutant that is single-handedly driving up Earth's temperatures, I still haven't seen a cost-effective solution that doesn't have its own serious ecological consequences or doesn't involve eradication of a significant portion of humanity and devolution to an American Indian way of life. Nevertheless, I am not opposed to a modest level of government investment in research for additional energy sources, whatever they might be. But, I am not anti fossil fuels -- we should continue to exploit them to provide cheap energy for the world.

I don't think AUDub is arrogant or uninformed. Quite the opposite. I think he is convinced. Whether he has been led by a prevailing theory of the times that will prove (as MANY others have) to be utterly wrong we can only wait and see.

Getting called stupid, denier, uninformed whatever is never pleasant. But to bow out of the debate because one is shouted down does no good.

There is no shortage of scientists telling people what they think should be done. Destroying economies to the truly devout among them (or at least those that support the agenda) is nothing compared to survival. IMO At some point we are going to run out of money as it is spending the way we do. If environmental policy agendas affect economies harshly that point will be sooner. When funding for the research is affected that is when it is really going to get interesting.

CajunCrimson said:

See, I don't really see a debate. It's not like we're given a situation and two choices....we're given a possible situation and no choices.....

No one has a solution. No one knows what will work. We are just assuming that by controlling levels of CO2, all will be normal. And, even if we stopped all fossil fuels today - we can't control what the rest of the world will do. And, as time goes by, we have less and less influence on the world to make them listen. The Libs are going to be in a pickle when they finally get what they want..... A US Gov't with limited to no impact on the world -- and a world that doesn't give a hoot about what they think.

What happens then?

Click to expand...

I get your frustration, but I also get the argument that just because others don't "do the right thing" (whatever that is) doesn't mean we should do whatever we want.

In the end we can only do what we collectively think is best, and deal with the consequences of that decision. That is what is being debated. The REAL problem IMO is that there are too many vested interests trying to make money off of this on both sides (and that includes government) to have a real objective reasonable argument about what we should do much less what we can do.

BamainBoston said:

People like AUDub scare me. I'm fine with having a religion, but don't use it to destroy the economy, tear down modern civilization, or expand government beyond all conceivable bounds on the basis of your faith.

Click to expand...

Lol, I'm Catholic, bruh. Solid ad hominem, though. :cheers2:

Thank you for the robust reply and for the correction on Dr. Hansen. Deltoid phrased it:

"Apparently the IBD thinks that if someone uses a program you wrote as a tool in their analysis you must agree with their conclusions. By their logic, if I borrow a pen from you, you must agree with everything I write with your pen."

I noticed the question mark by Rasool and Schneider. They were his colleagues at the time. Interestingly enough, they eventually withdrew the paper after finding that they had underestimated CO2's forcing characteristics. They also found that the effect was attributable to natural aerosols (think volcanoes) which stand apart from our emissions. In other words, they overestimated industrial pollution's possible cooling effect. They published a refined neutral correction in 1972. When they figured out that global warming was the more likely outcome, they completely retracted the paper in 1974.

NationalTitles15 said:

Not many true climatologists back then when you think about it. Then it was a hodgepodge of professions from biologists to geologists to oceanographers to whatever. They began tring to bridge the gaps between professions due to growing concern of man's impact on climate.

Click to expand...

Correct. However, your example of Erlich isn't a particularly good one. Erhlich's work was not focused on climate dynamics. His work was generally conjecture on population effects under certain criteria. On climate science, right or wrong, he was fishing, so careful taking him as a position of authority on the matter, no matter which of us with which he agrees (which is neither, since his position was neutral). He was a pure Malthusian doomsayer too if you read his work on the matter.

NationalTitles15 said:

It was all very disjointed then. There were warmers and coolers and steady staters. Climate was thought of more in regional terms than global terms. That changed over time.

Click to expand...

But the published research from that time, sparse though it may be, still indicated that the majority position was one of warming. Most scientists that hovered around neutral or even cooling territory eventually changed their view to reflect the consensus. See Schneider mentioned above or Murray Mitchell, whom you cited above, when he referred to the cooling conjecture as "irresponsible."

NationalTitles15 said:

There, again, are numerous articles from the time period quoting scientists about a coming ice age and a continuing cooling trend. They are not that hard to find.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/RG014i003p00429/abstract

Click to expand...

From the abstract you quoted (I'm not going to nest it, for organization's sake):

"It appears that the natural climatic cooling trend is roughly 3 times more powerful than the present influence of CO2. However, in the near future, far-reaching adverse climatic and ecological consequences can be expected because the CO2 increase is too rapid for the regulatory mechanisms of the oceans. The impact of an increasing aerosol loading cannot be assessed reliably yet. The net effect will probably be small or one of warming."

This is a neutral position. They are also correct on the natural forcing aspect, though their numbers are a bit off. Recall the models I presented in post 350. In the model runs that do not account for CO2, we would likely be seeing slight cooling from year to year.

NationalTitles15 said:

The unusual warmth of the period will eventually give way to a colder climate according to the NAS.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf

Click to expand...

But, again, if you read what the NAS report actually says:

"Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines it's course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes."

we are once again left with a bulletin that reflects a neutral position on the matter. They also referred to the far off period in which we can expect the next glaciation, based off of the work of Milankovitch. Technically speaking, we're still in an ice age right now.

NationalTitles15 said:

Whether or not these works, articles, opinions, or general views were later invalidated is of no consequence to the question of whether scientists at the time thought these things were possible or likely (ice age) or were products of natural variation that would overwhelm man's input into the climate. There was an awful lot of discussion at the time about a possible coming ice age and not just in popular writings. The popular writing did often quote scientists. Was there hype? I'm sure there was. Not too different from today. I found the waste heat idea interesting.

Click to expand...

It's clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. But, again, a review of the scientists active in the field (the published literature) indicated that the consensus existed by the time the media went off on their little global cooling scare.

NationalTitles15 said:

Whatever the case I have frankly spent too much of my time looking around the interwebs for these things and won't soon be doing it again. Don't know why I did it this time. I guess I am slower to change than I had hoped.

Click to expand...

Don't get down. I really enjoy these little conversations more than I let on.

NationalTitles15 said:

It's hard to change someone's mind when they already have it made up and actively resist anything that challenges their preconceived notions. Why would I think that presenting evidence to support my case that thoughts of a steady state global climate or one that was driven by natural forces or fears of a coming ice age were widespread during the general time period would change your mind? Surely you've been exposed to these things and rejected them.

Click to expand...

I'm open to sound alternative interpretations and will go where the evidence takes me, but, and no offense, you have not done a good job making your case.

Which was:

NationalTitles15 said:

So, Is it your contention that there was not a widespread consensus that the Earth might be entering a new ice age in the 1960-70's timeframe? If so, that is an odd assertion.

Click to expand...

NationalTitles15 said:

Before the 60's there was very little peer reviewed research. That only slowly grew over time. To restrict studying the prevailing thoughts of scientists at the time to peer reviewed research in a field that didn't exist at all in its present day form seems counterintuitive to actually understanding what was happening at the time in the climate sciences. The research on climate change was just really getting started. And was mainly centered around geopolitical consequences. So much has changed in the field since that time. It was, as they say, a different world. It operated much differently than today. So the same methods that work well today may not apply to the period. IOW, peer reviewed research is the norm today, but the field was quite nascent then. Predicting climate was new and the need to do so was again brought about by geopolitical concerns. First there was inertia. Then there were false starts. Is runaway warming a false start? I don't know. Neither does anyone else. In due time we will find out.

Click to expand...

Peer review has been a touchstone of the scientific method for centuries. (In some form or fashion)

It is, admittedly, somewhat flawed.

CajunCrimson said:

Not moving away from argument. There ultimately is nothing left to argue. I'm so far from idiotic or goofball status, you have no idea.

Click to expand...

You've stopped because I've pretty much shredded everything you chucked at me on the scientific side, so you launched into some moronic screed about the moral downfall of our world, which has nothing at all to do with what we're discussing.

All of this while suggesting we shouldn't care what we leave behind for future generations because it's not our problem. And you have the nerve to accuse me of being morally bereft!

CajunCrimson said:

I don't know you. But most people tend to fit neatly in little slots that were created for them along with a list of assumed traits. You fit nicely.

Click to expand...

Yeah, OK. Stereotypes exist for a reason, eh?

Oh, wait. I get it.

Cajun - "Conservative is associated with things that I like, and liberal is associated with things that I don't like."

CajunCrimson said:

What you don't understand is that people are either conditioned to accept or refute a theory for a variety of reasons. Most are beyond just using simple logic. Their beliefs go beyond education, or religion, or upbringing.....it's how their brain is wired.

Click to expand...

I stand by my earlier statement that you should have put your referring to yourself as a "logic based thinker" in blue. Your thinking on this matter is far from logical. I'll even start pointing out your fallacies now, because I tire of them and you need to see just how wrong you are.

Some folks are capable of offering a sound case for parsing AGW and ending up with a different conclusion. You are not one of those people.

CajunCrimson said:

Science has an extremely inconsistent past that is constantly being updated. Politics uses science when convenient (global weirding) and ignores it when it's not convenient.

Click to expand...

Ah, the "science was wrong before" card.

Continuum fallacy.

That is a strength, not a weakness and you completely miss the point that there are different degrees of wrong:

"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Isaac Asimov has got you pegged.

Sure the science can always change. Einstein cast new light on Newtonian physics and how gravity bends space time rather than just attracting objects.

Einstein's refinements didn't change the fact that if you drop a hammer, it can still hurt your toe, or our ability to calculate the force with which it will hit your foot with F=MA.

Likewise, the development of quantum mechanics did not completely invalidate classical mechanics.

CajunCrimson said:

The people pushing the global warming agenda are doing so with a political motivation. They are willing to destroy our economy in the process....

Click to expand...

Conspiracy theory

THWACKA THWACKA THWACKA

IS THAT YOU, MULDER?

CajunCrimson said:

My point is, and has always been......it's not a real issue. And, if I'm wrong, can we truly fix it? If not, why bother?

Click to expand...

Argument from assertion.

Yes, we can minimize the impact from the changes already well underway.

Reference

CajunCrimson said:

There are dozens of things that could influence the temperature on the planet.....and yet, we focus on the one that has the biggest expense and the smallest impact.

Click to expand...

Another argument from assertion.

Smallest impact. Man, you're bad at this. You haven't a darned clue what you're talking about. CO2's nature as a GHG has been understood since before the Civil War.

Reference (Caution PDF)

Reference

CajunCrimson said:

So, even if you are 100% right....can you prove to anyone that there is a solution that will be guaranteed to work? Because I would bet that if you polled these same scientists about what solution they would suggest would be best, I would guess you would see no consensus....

Click to expand...

They would pretty much universally say REDUCE OUR EMISSIONS. Which is exactly what they're already doing. :smilielol5:

Reference

CajunCrimson said:

Your arrogance is admirable.....but the next time you want to start throwing insults about someone's intelligence, be careful.....Instant Karma might get ya.

Click to expand...

Says the guy that chucks out terms like "Libtard."

I didn't say you were an idiot, I said that you applied something idiotically. There is a difference between calling an argument stupid and calling a person stupid.

Surely you know the difference, hypocrite. :aiwebs_027:

BamainBoston said:

People like AUDub scare me. I'm fine with having a religion, but don't use it to destroy the economy, tear down modern civilization, or expand government beyond all conceivable bounds on the basis of your faith.

Click to expand...

Thats not happening. Its just paranoid scare tactics.

Bamaro said:

Thats not happening. Its just paranoid scare tactics.

Click to expand...

Are you thinking that government cost-benefit analyses behind new regulations will prevent unacceptable destruction from happening?