Changes in Atlantic currents

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Do you get the science directly from the scientists? Not likely - you likely read about it in an article. The articles from that era were almost exclusively touting "global cooling." Gwynne wasn't the only one, and it's fairly egotistical of him to consider that he was a lone voice crying "freezing!" Saying otherwise is re-writing history.

The fact that science and scientists over a period of time may change their views as the data is analysed doesn’t make science unreliable. In fact it affirms that it’s not a religion but changes in the face of newly uncovered facts.

Science accepts man made climate change is occurring and it’s effects are increasing. The modelling isn’t good enough ( yet ) to accurately predict the precise effects and timescales.

Hence one argument is “ ah they don’t have the answers so let’s do nothing “ another is “ ha you’ve changed your answer so all of it is suspect “

In fact these types of positions are simply spouted by people who simply don’t like or want to hear the truth. Just like millions who denied smoking causes cancer.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Do you get the science directly from the scientists?

I got the science from the Journal of the American Meteorological Society. I first came across a report of the analysis in The New Scientist:

"Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s"

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz7CJKUzepw

Which I then traced back to the peer-reviewed article from AMS.

I have propensity to use original sources, rather than second hand reports.

Your post shows just how powerful myths can cloud the truth.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by davil

Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy" sentenced him to house arrest where he remained until his death in 1642.

Ironically, as sailors, we still use the Ptolemaic paradigm in celestial navigation, even though the concepts were developed long after Copernicus and Galileo

[AndyEss]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I got the science from the Journal of the American Meteorological Society. I first came across a report of the analysis in The New Scientist:

"Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s"
.

In the 1970’s, I was programming Fortran on punchcards. Output was on reams of teletype paper.

I am sure there are plenty of other things that have changed from the 1970’s too. I no longer own a wood hulled sail boat, navigate by compass and paper chart, or try longer distance communicating by semaphore flags as I learned as a boy scout.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Ironically, as sailors, we still use the Ptolemaic paradigm in celestial navigation, even though the concepts were developed long after Copernicus and Galileo

Isn't that also a bit of a myth ... nobody shipboard is calculating ephemerides of astronomical bodies, they are just looked up in an almanac. And for sure geocentric Ptolemaic epicycles are nowhere to be seen in the calculations of the almanac publishers.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

Isn't that also a bit of a myth ... nobody shipboard is calculating ephemerides of astronomical bodies, they are just looked up in an almanac. And for sure geocentric Ptolemaic epicycles are nowhere to be seen in the calculations of the almanac publishers.

The epicycles are not there. But we still use celestial and terrestrial spheres with the Earth at the centre.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The epicycles are not there. But we still use celestial and terrestrial spheres with the Earth at the centre.

Well there you go, I thought one was spherical trigonometry and the other celestrial mechanics. One learns every day (sarcasm)

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

The difference is, we only need a few dozen nuclear plants, and can build them at the same time.



Solar cells are built, they are manufactured at the molecular level in a semiconductor plant.



We would need to build hundreds of new semiconductor plants to meet that kind of demand.



Which will take a decade, only THEN will you be able to start making massive amounts of solar cells, then start manufacturing panels.



Solar cells are the least profitable semiconductor.



Look at the current chip shortage, and call up those Semiconductor companies, and tell them to stop producing chips they can sell for $100 each, and start making $1 solar cells.

The tech required to make a solar cell are considered minor compared to that of making an ic for processing

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Just how much does Oz contribute to the global carbon load? One percent or less? So it really has very little actual effect on the imaginary 1.5 degrees.

I’ve already addressed your comment with nuclear build times

This last paragraph is playground stuff. Australia is in a position to be a global leader in renewables, has been for some time. We have a huge project happening which will export green power north into Asia and we can do that into the pacific. Not only reducing our emissions but helping others to and reaping the financial benefits of doing so.

But our govt is owned by fossil fuel interests and we subsidise them instead

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I got the science from the Journal of the American Meteorological Society. I first came across a report of the analysis in The New Scientist:

"Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s"

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz7CJKUzepw

Which I then traced back to the peer-reviewed article from AMS.

I have propensity to use original sources, rather than second hand reports.

Your post shows just how powerful myths can cloud the truth.

And if you actually read the article what does the very first sentence say?

Indeed they did.

Another article linked in the above seems to agree with me (I'm not paying for a subscription, so just going by the opening paragraphs): https://www.newscientist.com/article...hat-never-was/

I'm not disagreeing with you that some research suggested warming back then, nor that most scientists then honestly stated that climate was too complex to know completely which way temperatures would be going. But I'm truly curious if we're able to acknowledge that research can take us in different directions as it matures, then how it is that current "science" is so fragile that they need to whitewash the narrative from 4+ decades ago? It's the pervasive dishonesty that makes me skeptical. Clearly that's not a problem for the acolytes. Shockingly this Wiki article seems fairly honest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling. I'm sure it won't be long before it's edited.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Hence one argument is “ ah they don’t have the answers so let’s do nothing “ another is “ ha you’ve changed your answer so all of it is suspect “

Yet another argument is "incentivise the adoption of new technologies and lifestyle changes that reduce pollution, but don't cripple economies, or burden people with pointless taxes until you can get world-wide buy-in on a plan."

Or we can keep listening to the illuminati who happily jet around the world, preaching that the end is nigh, the situation dire, the tipping point is here, we're doomed, etc etc etc.

Will you be the willing lambs when they confiscate all your fuel-powered devices and ban the consumption of meat?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

And if you actually read the article what does the very first sentence say?

Another article linked in the above seems to agree with me (I'm not paying for a subscription, so just going by the opening paragraphs): https://www.newscientist.com/article...hat-never-was/

The last paragraph of the New Scientist article to which I linked:

Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz7CLQO5pqw

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The last paragraph of the New Scientist article to which I linked:

Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

IIRC, that study was done in 2008, and the 44 papers didn't necessarily "predict warming", but were assessed in that category if warming was "implied" or the gist of the paper generally "provided support" to the warming supposition. I'm sure they applied a fair and unbiased approach to making those judgments, just like Oreskes did with the "97% of scientists support AGW" paper (insert irony smiley here).

As with most of this so-called "science" you should apply a judicious eye to what you read. It counted papers, not scientists - for all we know, one prodigious scientist wrote 44 papers.

And as you can plainly see "predictions of cooling got more media attention", which is what I've been saying all along.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

And as you can plainly see "predictions of cooling got more media attention", which is what I've been saying all along.

The MSM got it wrong. And you swallowed it.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

And if you actually read the article what does the very first sentence say?
"Indeed they did" ...

"Indeed they did. At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future, leading to some pretty sensational media coverage (see Histories: The ice age that never was)..."