National Parks affected by the climate changes

[Robert Roaldi]

Scientists were warning of Global Cooling back then.  Newspapers were broadcasting how cold it's going to get - another Ice Age.  Brrrr.   

They didn't cure many people of cancer back then either, and cardiologists didn't have stent technology. Science marches on. Try to keep track.

[Alan Klein]

They didn't cure many people of cancer back then either, and cardiologists didn't have stent technology. Science marches on. Try to keep track.

It was current back then.  The current science will be old in a few decades too as time marches on as well.  I still think warming is better than cooling. 

[Peter McLennan]

There was global cooling in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising.

What part of

Show us valid, verifiable data proving these assertions

Did you not understand?

Additionally, please demonstrate (with more valid, verifiable data) that, even if true, a brief cooling period in the 40s 50s and 60s accurately represents temperature trends hundreds of years long.

[Frans Waterlander]

What part of

Did you not understand?

Additionally, please demonstrate (with more valid, verifiable data) that, even if true, a brief cooling period in the 40s 50s and 60s accurately represents temperature trends hundreds of years long.

You can find this information yourself, if you are really interested, instead of trying to create a gotcha moment. This cooling, while CO2 levels were rising is well documented, as is the solar activity and global temperature correlation.

[Peter McLennan]

You can find this information yourself, if you are really interested, instead of trying to create a gotcha moment. This cooling, while CO2 levels were rising is well documented, as is the solar activity and global temperature correlation.

You made the assertion.  Anybody can make assertions, even Donald Trump. 
It's up to YOU to prove your assertions, not for us to validate them for you. 
Otherwise it's empty (for want of a more polite word that won't offend Alan's tender sensibilities) rhetoric.  Valueless. 

Still waiting for scientific data from you that disprove the link between atmospheric CO2 and global heating.

[TechTalk]

There was global cooling in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising.

You're a good parrot... word for word repetition, right down to the punctuation!... have a cracker.

https://grist.org/article/what-about-mid-century-cooling

‘What about mid-century cooling?’–No one said CO2 is the only climate influence

Coby Beck - Published Nov 06, 2006 in Grist - Brief excerpt below...

Objection: There was global cooling in the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising. Clearly, temperature is not being driven by CO2.

Answer: None of the advocates of the theory of anthropogenic global warming claim that CO2 is the only factor controlling temperature in the ocean-atmosphere climate system. It is a large and complex system, responsive on many different timescales, subject to numerous forcings. AGW only makes the claim that CO2 is the primary driver of the warming trend seen over the last 100 years. This rise has not been smooth and steady — nor would it be expected to be.

If you look at the temperature record for the 1990s, you’ll notice a sharp drop in ’92, ’93, and ’94. This is the effect of massive amounts of SO2 ejected into the stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo’s eruption. That doesn’t mean CO2 took a holiday and stopped influencing global temperatures; it only means that the CO2 forcing was temporarily overwhelmed by another, opposite forcing.

The situation is similar to the cooling seen in the ’40s and ’50s. During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this latter kind of emissions over the ’60s and ’70s, and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over. Below, courtesy of Global Warming Art, is an image of the current understanding of the factors and their influence for the climate of the past century.

[More at Link Above]

[TechTalk]

It was current back then.  The current science will be old in a few decades too as time marches on as well.  I still think warming is better than cooling.

You can find this information yourself, if you are really interested, instead of trying to create a gotcha moment. This cooling, while CO2 levels were rising is well documented, as is the solar activity and global temperature correlation.

Let's see... two guys on the internet with virtually no knowledge or interest in science [who are ideological zealots] or the world's leading scientists who have devoted their lives to study and research of the subject. Hmmmm... I think I'll go with the people that have the education, experience, reams of data, and vast knowledge... the scientists.

[LesPalenik]

Getting warmer means that populations are expanding and territory not previously occupied because it was too cold are now being filled by expansion of many species into them.  That's good by most standards. 

The temperature is increasing also in Alaska. And now we hear voices from Russia that they want Alaska back.

CLIMATE CHANGE IN ALASKA
Every new day brings with it new evidence of climate change in Alaskan communities – warmer, record breaking temperatures have resulted in thawing permafrost, thinning sea ice, and increasing wildfires. These changes have resulted in a reduction of subsistence harvests, an increase in flooding and erosion, concerns about water and food safety and major impacts to infrastructure: including damage to buildings, roads and airports.
...
A warming climate will damage Alaska’s infrastructure because it was designed for a cold climate. Damage from climate change could add $3.6 to $6.1 billion (10% to 20%) to future costs for public infrastructure from now to 2030. Institute of Social and Economic Research

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/ClimateChange.aspx

A top Russian lawmaker warned the United States that Russia may seek to reclaim Alaska in retaliation for U.S. sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine.

During a parliamentary session in Moscow on Wednesday, Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Federal Assembly, told the U.S. to think twice before seizing or freezing Russian assets abroad, reminding the U.S. that Alaska once belonged to Russia and the Kremlin may want the land back.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/russia-may-reclaim-alaska

[Robert Roaldi]

Great entrepeneurs and scientists think out of the box.  They did not take for granted existing theories.  They always questioned them, critically.  Anyone can repeat the thoughts and opinions of others with no question.  Man would be no wheres with that attitude and back in the stone age. 

In any case, it's a matter of degree.  I don't question everything,  just more things than most I suppose.  When you see all the mistakes people make in so many fields, you become attuned to commonplace errors.  You read between the lines.  It becomes intuitive, maybe due to age.  In any case, you're just saying what you're saying for political and competitive reasons.  That's OK.  I get it.

But you only seem to question things that you are "politically" against (in a general sense). Isn't that a bit selective? Sort of the way that Trump insists that voter fraud only happened in districts he lost. I mean, come on, it's a little convenient you have to admit.

[digitaldog]

Let's see... two guys on the internet with virtually no knowledge or interest in science [who are ideological zealots] or the world's leading scientists who have devoted their lives to study and research of the subject.

Even worse: two guys on the internet on a website about photography with virtually no knowledge or interest in Photography! "On the internet, you can be anything you want. It’s strange that so many people choose to be stupid".- Anonymous

[Frans Waterlander]

So, in addition to believing you're such a fierce debater that one would have to "be a masochist" to engage you... now, you believe that you have a better understanding of climate science than the world's leading climate scientists. Both prospects are absurd.

So, just how many minutes of your life have you spent studying climate science?

Personal attack; I'm done with you.

[TechTalk]

Awwwwww... you'll be OK.

[Alan Klein]

They didn't cure many people of cancer back then either, and cardiologists didn't have stent technology. Science marches on. Try to keep track.

Who's to say they're accurate now and won't change?  Another scientific theory I recall back then besides Global Cooling was the Population Explosion.  Science and media were pushing that theory as well.  We were assured that another billion people and the world would collapse into starvation.  Well, the population has increased by billions more and we're still here.  Interestingly, many countries are in real trouble because of low fertility rates.  There aren't enough younger people in these countries, like China, Italy, and Japan, to support the old populations that will stop working because of age.  Science marches on.  It's hard to keep track. 

[TechTalk]

...Science marches on...

...while you remain rigidly planted.

[Alan Klein]

You can find this information yourself, if you are really interested, instead of trying to create a gotcha moment. This cooling, while CO2 levels were rising is well documented, as is the solar activity and global temperature correlation.

The facts about global cooling are unimportant.  Obviously, the scientists back then were wrong.  The point is the whole world was worried about it because science claimed it was going to happen and the media ran with it as they are running with global warming today. 

[Alan Klein]

Let's see... two guys on the internet with virtually no knowledge or interest in science [who are ideological zealots] or the world's leading scientists who have devoted their lives to study and research of the subject. Hmmmm... I think I'll go with the people that have the education, experience, reams of data, and vast knowledge... the scientists.

What knowledge do you have of these things other than cherry-picking articles and statements by others?     We don't even know your real name, or any name you want to give us.  You hide all facts about yourself.  Why are your opinions more valid than anyone else's?

[Alan Klein]

The temperature is increasing also in Alaska. And now we hear voices from Russia that they want Alaska back.

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/ClimateChange.aspx

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/russia-may-reclaim-alaska

It's warming up more in the lower 48.  Will Canada want America "back"?  Hold on.  It;s warming up in Canada.  Will France or GB want Canada back?

[Alan Klein]

But you only seem to question things that you are "politically" against (in a general sense). Isn't that a bit selective? Sort of the way that Trump insists that voter fraud only happened in districts he lost. I mean, come on, it's a little convenient you have to admit.

I've told you before, I don't think Trump won.  Why do you keep claiming things I said that I didn't say? 

[TechTalk]

He didn't. You just didn't bother to read what was actually written with any care whatsoever and jumped to the wrong conclusion. So... what else is new?

[TechTalk]

https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

American Meteorological Society - September 2008

The Myth... When climate researcher Reid Bryson stood before the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in December 1972, his description of the state of scientists' understanding of climate change sounded very much like the old story about the group of blind men trying to describe an elephant. The integrated enterprise of climate science as we know it today was in its infancy, with different groups of scientists feeling blindly around their piece of the lumbering climate beast.


Rigorous measurements of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide were available for the first time, along with modeling results suggesting that global warming would be a clear consequence. Meanwhile, newly created global temperature series showed cooling since the 1940s, and other scientists were looking to aerosols to explain the change. The mystery of waxing and waning ice ages had long entranced geologists, and a cohesive explanation in terms of orbital solar forcing was beginning to emerge. Underlying this discussion was a realization that climate could change on time scales with the potential for significant effects on human societies, and that human activities could trigger such changes (Bryson 1974).

Bryson laid out the following four questions that still stand today as being central to the climate science enterprise:

i) How large must a climate change be to be important?
ii) How fast can the climate change?
iii) What are the causal parameters, and why do they change?
iv) How sensitive is the climate to small changes in the causal parameters?

Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. The research enterprise that grew in response to the questions articulated by Bryson and others, while considering the forces responsible for cooling, quickly converged on the view that greenhouse warming was likely to dominate on time scales that would be significant to human societies (Charney et al. 1979). However, perhaps more important than demonstrating that the global cooling myth is wrong, this review shows the remarkable way in which the individual threads of climate science of the time— each group of researchers pursuing their own set of questions—was quickly woven into the integrated tapestry that created the basis for climate science as we know it today.

Much More at Link Above