tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post1526756157992936140..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Is the end in sight? Monckton, the Sun and Cosmic Rays at WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84083197839822726242013-08-15T22:09:19.494+10:002013-08-15T22:09:19.494+10:00Laschamp excursion. You need to know your paleocli...Laschamp excursion. You need to know your paleoclimate, Tommy. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76032435195413526182013-08-15T22:07:32.084+10:002013-08-15T22:07:32.084+10:00It's desperate. They have nothing else.It's desperate. They have nothing else. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18388069807030120312013-08-15T13:22:02.336+10:002013-08-15T13:22:02.336+10:00GCRs amplify solar changes sevenfold?!?! That'...GCRs amplify solar changes sevenfold?!?! That's just freaking moronic.dana1981https://www.blogger.com/profile/05282075263730326573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15224899215844324562013-08-14T17:16:34.839+10:002013-08-14T17:16:34.839+10:00Thomas asks: "what was the climate concern du...Thomas asks: "what was the climate concern du jour of the late 1960s through mid-1970s? "<br /><br />Here's the answer:<br /><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html" rel="nofollow">What 1970s science said about global cooling</a> - <b>very little</b><br /><br />The <a href="http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf" rel="nofollow">Peterson et al paper</a> showing that science said very little about global cooling and more about global warming<br /><br />And since climate science deniers rely on newspapers for their memes, try these:<br />This one's pre-1960 - A <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/flashback-to-1957-co2-from-industry-may.html" rel="nofollow">newspaper article from 1957</a>, about how <i>weather experts in the Antarctic would take air samples to check a theory that the earth's climate was gradually warming because the amount of carbon dioxide was increasing</i>.<br /><br />This <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/08/flashback-to-1967-weather-and-air.html" rel="nofollow">one's from 1967</a> - the late '60s: <i>They note that there has been an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere largely because mankind has burned so much coal and oil in recent decades. Scientists believe this excess carbon dioxide should make the planet warmer. Nevertheless there has actually been a slight decrease in temperature, first noticed during the 1940s and thought to be continuing today.</i><br /><br />This <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/flashback-to-1972-scientists-fear-for.html" rel="nofollow">one's from the early 70's</a>, 1972: <i>Even without experimentation there was a possibility that global temperature increases produced by man's injection of heat and carbon dioxide into the environment could greatly reduce or even eliminate the Arctic Sea ice.</i>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69196236685620394922013-08-14T16:15:46.970+10:002013-08-14T16:15:46.970+10:00Oh, and no need to prove you'll grab at anythi...Oh, and no need to prove you'll grab at anything - this time "cosmic rays" - to deny AGW. Without showing any sign of understanding the science. Typical Thomas.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55838025205201890612013-08-14T16:13:12.013+10:002013-08-14T16:13:12.013+10:00I'm seriously stunned even by our newcomer Tho...I'm seriously stunned even by our newcomer Thomas. Seriously :D<br /><br />Thomas - are you seriously excusing Monckton by arguing "he didn't really mean it, he only said could"?<br /><br />That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is physics. The cause is known the evidence supports it. Are you seriously saying you don't accept the greenhouse effect?<br /><br />You put up evidence from the northern hemisphere. It isn't the entire world you know. <br /><br />The Little Ice Age is generally regarded as the coldest time of the entire Holocene. Do you seriously think it's reasonable to argue whole earth will suddenly drop to being as cold as the coldest it got over the Northern Hemisphere during the LIA (that is, in the entire Holocene) - and all this in just ten years from now - dropping to the lowest low from probably the hottest it's ever been in the Holocene? <br /><br />Are you seriously arguing that it's not supremely unrealistic to argue for a drop of one degree Celsius in ten years?<br /><br />Seriously?Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.com