Can’t resist being the grand marshal, huh?
Oh it certainly was, but it was also about running out of oil, mass starvation and the coming ice age crisis.
If you read the entire link, you will find that there was also fears about global warming as well at the time. The problem with that theory was the sharp drop that had been going on for 20 years. It was quite enough to alarm a lot of people. It certainly didn’t help when the seventies saw the coldest winters ever for some of the US. I know you youngsters don’t know shit about this, because you weren’t alive, and the idiots of global warming have done a fine job of re-writing the past to make the 70s winters (and the 80s as well) out to be no big deal.
They are completely full of shit of course. Kenneth Watt wasn’t the only one preaching doom from the drastic cooling going on. It actually was so bad there is an entire report to Congress about it, cited in this thread earlier. It was in fact, the reason for a lot of money being allocated to actually study climate.
I don’t think you are stupid, but I do think you are disingenuous, and I have not seen the point of debate with you because you throw out meaningless data or misrepresent the meaning of valid data, and overall make no attempt to tie it together into a cohesive argument.
For example, statements like the above confuse me (not the science, but what you are trying to say or imply by posting it). Do you think this is an argument against AGW? Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t worry about AGW because even if it’s happening, parts of the U.S. are still cool? Is it sarcasm? Is it simply trolling to get a reaction from people?
In the absence of anything that suggests otherwise, I have assumed it’s trolling. But I’m willing to give you one last chance. Please simply state what your argument is, without a wall of links or sarcasm. Bonus points if you can do so without using the words “hilarious” or “ironic.” I know you think you done this and people only need to read the history, but I’m telling you that people have no idea what your main hypothesis is. Case in point: back in March, septimus asked if you could present a brief, lucid paragraph of your stance. You first responded with a wall of links - no argument, no interpretation, just data with no context. You followed that with a reply linking to a previous post on temperatures in Illinois for some reason. When called on it, you responded with sarcasm.
So without hope, I ask one more time, state your argument. Leave the cites out for now, don’t link back to previous posts that you thought were clear (they weren’t). If you fail to do this (as I expect), I’ll return to ridicule, which is all you deserve.
FXM:
I absolutely agree, as the article states, that “Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of apocalyptic predictions.” I don’t see how that means the the apocalyptic predictions were its raison d’être. The movement was certainly encouraged in part by apocalyptic scenarios of all stripes, “global cooling” being only one such among many (c.f. Hayes, Gunter, and Ehrlich, not to mention Carson). But I would maintain that the *purpose *behind ED1970 and its successors was care for the environment, eradication of pollution, and avoiding global famine and population collapse.
.
I quite agree, especially since I was part of it. As were many people I know.
No matter which was the wind was going to blow, we were quite certain the massive pollution going on was a bad thing. (it still is)
Well OK, then, but you are going to have to wait. I got actual shit to do.
And of course, what you are asking for is already in the topic, if you can’t wait.
For all its faults, I credit the so-called “Green Movement” with ending acid rain, massive lake and river die-offs, among other excellent results. And the Cuyahoga hasn’t caught fire in years.
andros: Absolutely. A good many of us remember when Los Angeles was a big bowl of brown air, and when Lake Erie was a nasty bowl of grey slime.
The mainstream ecology movement has done wonders.
(Acid rain still seems to be a problem, though. We’re still burning coal and ducting the smoke away via very tall smokestacks. This just spreads the combustion chemicals farther, where they accumulate in rainwater.)
We’re much better off than we were, but there are still some nasty issues to address.
It’s hard to know where to begin at times. The first obstacle is figuring out what you are talking about.
That is simply a false statement, certainly it’s your opinion, but it’s actually meaningless.
Once more we see a statement that seems so idiotic, it has to be sarcasm. But it makes no sense as sarcasm, it actually seems you believe it. That’s ignorant, especially if you actually have been reading. I mean, I have stated clearly many times, that alarmists use weather events to try and alarm people, all the time. Doing so is stupid. If you want to talk about climate change, you have to use long time periods, because in essence climate is weather over time, or the general weather a region is expected to experience. There are all kinds of climates, but there is no global climate, anymore than there is global weather. This is a fundamental fact. Even so, we do talk about global climate change, because change is something we know happens. There are well known cyclic changes, patterns, that large regions experience.
But I digress. You seem to think I am making some sort of argument, when in fact it’s more like I am discussing what I find wrong, sometimes very wrong, about claims other people are making. Even so it’s certainly confusing, since there are simply too many things going on in a single topic. For example, I clearly made a point, explaining it so pretty much anyone could follow.
Maybe it’s impossible for some people to follow this reasoning. I don’t know. But if somebody wants to use a regional change as evidence of global change, in this case a west coast US drought, they can’t say that the same thing for the east coast is meaningless. Not if you want to have credibility. We see over and over the defense “it’s the global average”, as if it’s a startling new insight. But using that reasoning, we can dismiss the drought, since it’s the global average that matters. And it says rainfall is up, so there is no drought in California. Which of course sounds idiotic.
But that is EXACTLY what is used to counter the points about record cold, snow, unusual cold weather events. They are dismissed, or worse, somehow cold also means global warming. This is sort of insane. Or at least it sounds insane. Like the record snow in Australia. Sydney hasn’t seen snow since 1836. The Antarctic storm has caused traffic accidents, school closures and power outages around the state on Australia’s southeastern coast. The warmist will dismiss this, because it’s the global average that matters. But I just pointed out how idiotic that sounds, by using the California drought as an example. Most people can appreciate that saying the drought doesn’t matter, because it’s the global rainfall that matters, most people can see that sounds wrong. It just handwaves away a major event occurring, and claims it means nothing. Because it’s the global average that matters. Yet you claim there is no argument there.
It might be confusing because you think it is all meaningless, that unusual cold, record cold, record snow, unsuual snow, you think it means nothing.
I left out Australia and New Zealand, both have had unudual cold and snow this year.
Not by itself. Certainly weather can be unpredictable, unusual, and a freak cold front and snow doesn’t mean much by itself, anymore than a record heat wave does. It’s the trend, the change over time that matters. If Australia is showing clear trend of warming, and just once there is snow and unusual cold, it’s just weather. Same for anywhere else.
I know you hate sources and complicated science stuff, but it’s the essential heart of the matter. Otherwise is just opinion, rhetoric, it doesn’t mean much.
No, and it’s never going to be that simple. It can’t be. In fact, if it turns out the trends are actually being caused by us, we might want to worry a lot more. Because according to the data, even with it being massaged and adjusted, it’ obvious that something is happening. Yeah, I have to use evidence at this point.
I like to think the sarcasm is self evident, but certainly it doesn’t seem to be. Trolling is for complete losers, and pretty much never dwells on scientific sources, theory or explains the reasoning behind something. But each is his own judge in these matters.
Let’s look at why cold might matter. It won’t take long, and anyone can do it. While you can see the entire globe, lets look at the regions seriously effected by cold and snow in recent winters. (2012 was the anomaly year)
Interestingly enough, southern Australia shows up as cooling using the last decade. But it’s the US that really stands out. What an asymmetric change.
The handwavers will say a decade is too short, so we look at the twenty year trend, and the thirty year trend, both show the “warming hole” in the US, which is a horrible name for it.
We can run it out to a 6 month period, and see the areas that are reporting the coldest 6 month periods fall firmly in the areas that show the cooling trend. The twenty year trend still shows the cooling , especially around the great lakes.
Now if we use the coldest period, J-F, the 20 year trend is startling. It really stands out, it’s not possible to ignore it.
And it’s not just the US. What is causing this? (You see, it’s not an argument in that sense)
What we can know, is that THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE OPPOSITE OF BASIC GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.
Not only does it not predict or explain this, it can’t predict or explain it. It’s just not possible. (I’ve cited the sources for that dozens of times, no need to do it again)
A cooling trend for the Northern hemisphere winters, over land, is the exact opposite of what the basic theory predicts we should observe. See? I am not arguing something new, I am arguing that what the theory predicts, and what we have observed, are not in agreement. Not at all.
There is a lot more on this, with tons of links and such in the shuttered Great Debate topic. Not that I think you will read it, but there it is.
There’s a shit ton more, but time is short, and life as always, is calling and I can’t ignore it.
Hope that at least starts you on a journey of understanding.
Many of us here would love for a simple, clear statement of your point. I was hoping you could give us one when you were asked:
And you responded with a long post, of twenty or so paragraphs! I tried to follow it, but it was too convoluted (and I are a teachur. At an actual college).
So how about it? Do you remember your teacher asking for a “thesis statement”? Can you simply state your point in a sentence?
I don’t think so. We have a jet stream in the northern hemisphere. It is a rather anomalous vortex of high-speed wind that drives a lot of weather there. It can move air from one place to another.
Consider: Polar ice is melting. It reflects less sunlight back into space than before, more sunlight being absorbed by recently-exposed polar ocean. Over time, the warmer polar water does two things: it expands, and it warms the local atmosphere, which also expands. You’ve got a ‘warm front’ in the arctic! (I’m using quotes because it is still really fucking cold)
Okay. The expansion of the atmosphere at the pole pushes very fucking cold polar air closer to where the jet stream operates. The jet stream sucks up this cold air and drags it to certain places based on… what drives the jet’s stream’s trajectory? I don’t know, so make your whole next post about that. Very cold polar water is also being pushed out of the arctic- who knows, maybe there are semi-predictable ocean currents that will drag this cold water to certain places, too! Just factor in that cold water will tend to sink. I guess that is the rising of the oceans right there, the new layer of cold water on the bottom, more in some places than others.
Anyway, if cold air is imported from the pole, it could make certain northern regions colder while also being evidence of global warming, because, overall, including the temperature increases in the arctic, more energy is being added to the total atmosphere.
Plus, arctic air warms much more quickly over America and Russia than it does in, yanno, the arctic. I don’t think the re-location of polar weather is a very heartening sign at all. 
Wow. That was your attempt at a simple statement of your position? Holy shit, that’s a hot mess of gobbledygook. I guess I should thank you for confirming my suspicions. I was feeling a little guilty for just ridiculing you. But now you’ve given me all the proof I need that you are simply a troll looking for a reaction, not presenting an argument. I will keep your response bookmarked for anyone else tempted to try a rational discussion with you.
Like I said, he can’t resist being Grand Marshal Bozo.
OK now you are talking about weather, something that is more complicated than climate, and a source of many many misconceptions and ideas. Here’s a picture to explain why your statement is wrong. Here’s a page with another picture that will explain it as well. Here’s a page explaining why, as well as a bunch of other important stuff about weather and climate. Here’s a page about jet streams and climate models.
Here’s a quick verbal explanation why you misunderstand jet streams. They exist because of the difference between air masses and temperature. In the NH summer, when the polar regions are warmest, the polar jet is very small, weak, because there is little difference between temperatures.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/jet.htm
No, it was just about one thing. There are many many more. Climate science, as well as global warming, is very complicated. I understand that you can’t follow it. Few can.
A statement like “climate models have not predicted what has actually happened” might be your level of reading comprehension. But such a statement is almost meaningless.
It’s too simple to be argued. Wrong how? Why would you say this?
But if you aren’t going to actually read a topic, then why post in it?
The fact that these questions were not quoted should tell you something.
For comedic value.
Typical fuckhead move. Some of us have a life and can’t spend a lot of time responding to every fuckhead question right away. It’s ironic because I was trying to respond, in between doing actual real shit, and your fuckhead comment made me realize it’s a waste of time. Here’s what I had in the buffer, not that it will matter at all.
Trying to reduce global warming to “a point” is an exercise in futility. The topic title is a simple point. Did you miss what it says?
And yet you misspelled teacher? Your post wasn’t important enough to check for typos before posting? Seriously? What about proper grammar? Oh wait, it’s sarcasm. Or trolling. Because you wrote it like an idiot would. Priceless.
If this were an essay, that would be valid. Again, “I’m sick of this Global Warming!” would fit your demand. The problem is, as many realize, you have to define “this global warming” before you can understand why I am sick of it. And that’s very very complex.
(long story ahead, fuckheads can skip it)
The line came to me in the midst of shoveling record snowfall in 2009. I was joking at the time, being sarcastic with the neighbor across the street, who was shoveling alongside me. He was a climate skeptic, I was not. He thought I actually meant it, and said something disparaging about the UN and global warming, at which point I shut up, not wanting a political conversation.
Being new to the frozen north (Washington DC area) I was thrilled at the blizzard, never having been in one. Everybody assured me it was almost unheard of, and that I would probably never see one again there. They all talked about the 1996 blizzard, and how unusual they were in the area. I explained how global warming could actually be contributing to greater snow fall. I didn’t rerally care about the blizzard a few days later, having gone south for the holidays.
Fuck it.
As I’m sure anyone by now can tell, has no thesis, let alone an alternate theory. He’s the kid in the back of the classroom who goes <cough>BULLSHIT!<cough> into his sleeve. Only now, his sleeve is coated with mucus and nobody ever laughs anymore.
We’re treating the Earth as a perfect black-body radiator, which is a closed system. Using the Earth’s black-body temperature we combine the trivial amount of energy from radioactive decay with the residual energy from the gravitational collapse 4.6 Bya. This energy leaking into the atmosphere is getting smaller as time goes on, thus it cannot be used to account the rise in temperatures, nor is it man-made.
Sorry, buck-o, go ahead and do the arithmetic … for 1,400 W m[sup]-2[/sup], what’s the total Wattage? Now compare that to the Wattage of radioactive decay after 5 billion years.