Live data from Hacker News

For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

theconversation.com

111–120 of 120 posts

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The contradiction appears there, in the abstract of his paper. He realized that greenhouse gas physics should trap warmth and CO2 was going up, but accepted that the world had actually been cooling for decades. So how could he explain this contradiction? He presented a hypothesis that maybe it was a volcano-related natural phenomenon, in which cooling caused by volcano exhaust was offsetting the warming effects of CO…

> According to modern climatologists the cooling trend Mitchell was trying to explain with volcanos never existed at all ... and anyone who says otherwise is a malicious liar Who are the modern climatologists that are saying that the data recorded and reported by Mitchell does not exist? Are you saying that the NASA data graph is false for 1940-1975? I couldn't find any graph in Mitchell's paper.

Yes, it's been changed. Mitchell's paper doesn't have a graph but there are plenty that do. On mobile now but if you research this topic (don't use Google) you can find graphs that show the per year deltas from older data sources to newer. It's not a secret they do this, they admit it when people find out, but it's never brought up by those who are pushing doom for obvious reasons (+the edits specifically created a simple warming trend).

In this case you don't actually need a graph anyway, because the editing in that period is so extreme. Just look at his abstract. He says the world was cooling since 1940 and still is in 1975. Obviously that statement makes no sense if you look at modern databases during the period. To understand why he said that you have to look at older graphs, before climatology became so corrupted. They do indeed show a step and decades long fall in temperatures.

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#112
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"while this seems to be the case for you, I'd like you to ask yourself if that's the right question to be asking." I don't actually care about the social dynamics of scientists, because since the start of COVID I've developed a strong cynicism about all academic reliability, and so really wish that No True Scientist type arguments would go away. They're boring and even if an academic consensus did exist (it doesn't)…

> it doesn't It does. > Nobody seems to care about ECS You only even know the term ECS because scientists are in fact talking about it. > the Guardian Are a newspaper and therefore misrepresent everything (if not literally then at least a lot of stuff). Did you know the Guardian's nickname is "Grauniad" because of its early reputation for frequent typographical errors, including misspelling its own name as "The Gaurd…

"There are archives of scientific publications, not just newspapers. This backs up what the scientists are saying and not what the newspapers are saying"

OK, let's check. Here are just a handful of scientific papers from the 60s and 70s talking about global cooling that I pulled off Google Scholar in five minutes. By the way, notice how every single one treats the existence of a long term cooling trend as unarguable, undisputed fact and then observe that modern climatologists present long term temperature data that simply erases the trend all these older scientists were talking about: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Mitchell (debated elsewhere in this thread): https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/10/4/1520-04...

"Suggestions by several previous authors to the effect that the apparent worldwide cooling of climate in recent decades is attributable to large-scale increases of particulate pollution of the atmosphere by human activities are not supported by this analysis"

Mitchell again: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-1729-9_...

"It is concluded that the cooling of climate since 1940, apparently still in progress, is a natural phenomenon plausibly related to an enhanced stratospheric loading by volcanic dust in the period"

Science, 1975: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.188.4188.535

"The regions that would be most severely affected by a continuation of the cooling trend to the year 2000 would be the higher latitudes (above 50 degrees) where spring wheat is grown and the warm band below 30 degrees latitude where rice is the principal grain crop."

Another Science paper, 1975: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.189.4201.460

"If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out."

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1972: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1974...

"The mean temperature for the Northern Hemisphere had a warming trend from 1890 to 1950 and a cooling trend since 1950. The eastern and central United States had colder temperatures in 1961–1970 than in 1931–1960"

Science and Public Policy, 1975: https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/2/6/264/163373...

"There is mounting evidence that the bad climate of 1972 may be the forerunner of a long series of less favourable agricultural crop years that lie ahead for most of the world. Thus widespread food shortages threaten just at the same time that populations are growing to new highs. Indeed, less favourable climate may be the new global norm. The Earth may have entered a new ‘little ice age’."

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#113
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware that acid rain problem was solved by regulatory action? It didn't automatically disappear.

Yes, Im painfully aware of this. Christ I wouldn't be making the point of I wasn't this aware of it! (My own personal anger aside here) I have a strong educational background and a head on my shoulders. However from the mainstream public perception it just "disappeared one day" and transformed into "fossil fuels will be gone" which turned into "global warming" which is now "climate change". This is obviously complete…

Why do you think it's nonsense? There are at least two competing narratives about climate change:

1. It's huge, an emergency and we're all basically fucked, in fact there's nothing we can do the problem is so vast.

2. It's actually not that big of a deal, most of the warming is natural cycles, a bit is human made but we're not sure how much, a mix of changing power sources and adaptation is entirely possible and if anything the path we're already on. There are likely bigger environment problems to focus on.

The second is the position you'd expect people to take having seen environmental problems be fixed without much fuss in the past. And obviously not every academic "crisis" is fixed via regulation. Think about Limits to Growth and all the claims that the world would run out of food that were popular in the 70s and 80s, or really for much longer than that. Governments didn't do much there and yet there was no crisis in the end, in fact we ended up with a crisis of obesity.

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#114
post #26
post #17

Quoted post unavailable.

Were many scientists insisting that global cooling was a problem?

They all insisted that the world was cooling because that's what official data at the time showed. Only some insisted it was or could be a problem, but of course those were the ones that got media and political attention.

The same is true today. Almost all scientists believe the world is warming. Only some extrapolate that into a crisis, but those are the ones who get media and political attention.

There are lots of claims being made in this thread that aren't true, e.g.

- only two papers talking about global cooling (wrong)

- journalists were inverting what scientists believed (wrong)

- there was no consensus on cooling (wrong; see how none of the papers discussing the cooling trend note any disagreement on its existence)

and so on. For examples of media reports and scientific papers talking about global cooling see my other posts.

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#115
post #48

"Arrhenius estimated doubling CO₂ would produce a world 5℃ hotter. This, thankfully, is higher than modern calculations but not too far off, considering he wasn’t using a sophisticated computer model!" This is talking about the variable called "equilibrium climate sensitivity". Climate sensitivity is a key question in any fact-based discussion of climate change. There are three problems with this statement: 1. ECS ca…

Could you define how long "for long periods" is and who those Scientists were? It is really funny how the "but they told us its cooling" thing is actually only widely known and talked in the English speaking parts of the world (mainly the US). Everywhere else in the world nobody even knows about this argument. There might be a reason for that. Also love you linking to a Newsweek article instead of some relevant paper…

See my comment below for example links to scientific papers talking about the cooling trend.

I don't really see why lack of familiarity with the historical facts in some parts of the world should reflect badly on the people who do know them. At any rate, it's not a big surprise. English is the de-facto language of science, the English speaking world has a stronger tradition of free speech and simply has more people who can research obscure topics vs most languages.

Also, look at where the global temperature datasets are produced - it's all US and UK universities and agencies. Historical temperature data for much of the 19th and 20th centuries comes primarily from US sources, because for much of the 20th century the rest of the world wasn't running organized weather station networks at all - rest of the world was either dirt poor, being ravaged by world wars or undergoing communist revolutions. The USA has a large scale weather station network dating back to the Victorian era. It also launched lots of weather satellites in the 70s.

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#116
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Im painfully aware of this. Christ I wouldn't be making the point of I wasn't this aware of it! (My own personal anger aside here) I have a strong educational background and a head on my shoulders. However from the mainstream public perception it just "disappeared one day" and transformed into "fossil fuels will be gone" which turned into "global warming" which is now "climate change". This is obviously complete…

Why do you think it's nonsense? There are at least two competing narratives about climate change: 1. It's huge, an emergency and we're all basically fucked, in fact there's nothing we can do the problem is so vast. 2. It's actually not that big of a deal, most of the warming is natural cycles, a bit is human made but we're not sure how much, a mix of changing power sources and adaptation is entirely possible and if a…

Sigh.

I'm not talking about the "narratives" around the "conversation".

The first problem is that this changes as it's almost 110% political.

The comment I'm making is that bad education causes problems 10-20 years down the line. Inconsistent exaggerated stories which are not presented in context are dangerous and in the case of multi-genrrational issues undermine the whole effort to get anything done.

Talking about the "we'll run out of food" as another example is showing how people don't trust the people saying this. The problem here is that the word "academic" often has to be put in quotes. It's so doo-gooder pro science but who shouts a lot and causes more problems for researchers. (For another example most of my time doing outreach is undoing the damage caused by fools "explaining" the highs boson)

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#117
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > This seems to be the mainstream opinion as well, > I don't agree with you. Unfortunately I'd have to agree with the original author here. People gest and make empty vacuous statements on social media _a lot_. People are also unwilling to change or take on a small amount of responsibility. These 2 things are in direct conflict. Again my strongest condemnation of this is people only now care about power and fuel ef…

Climate change can not be solved by individual action. It's a ridiculous idea to propose this in the first place. Governments are supposed to solve Tragedy of the Commons through regulation. The Common who takes it on himself will lose everything to gain nothing. government intervention such ad carbon tax and EV subsidies and actions like the green new deal are what is needed.

> Climate change can not be solved by individual action. It's a ridiculous idea to propose this in the first place.

I... No

Again please stop focusing on what I'm not saying.

And btw there are huge environmental impacts that can be made that build up from bet actions of individuals and societal change. Ignoring that is frankly inconsistent or dishonest. It's a different scale to Chinas industrial pollution but I'm bout even talking about that.

Again I'm talking about the way people have these things explained and educated. When I mention the education here is damaged and being self defeatist I get 4 or 5 people explaining how climate policy does or should work show exactly how people "think good".

Again I'm saying you misrepresent something that will go on for years and people will remember you as a liar even if you were exaggerating a truth. Exactly because that's what lying is.

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#118

"Arrhenius estimated doubling CO₂ would produce a world 5℃ hotter. This, thankfully, is higher than modern calculations but not too far off, considering he wasn’t using a sophisticated computer model!" This is talking about the variable called "equilibrium climate sensitivity". Climate sensitivity is a key question in any fact-based discussion of climate change. There are three problems with this statement: 1. ECS ca…

What's weird is that climate cooling take. I use to read it a lot and took it as truth, but quite recently i did a research project on a French engineer/scientist, whit basically created the green political movement in the 70s. And i learned that this global cooling is totally false, and never existed at least in my country. So I really thought it was just shills and grifters who managed to fool me for quite some time, but it seems that in the US, this is taken quite seriously.

So to be clear: this global cooling 'research' did not exist. We founded research on temperature change in the 60s and on the prior earth climate, adaptation and means of surviving a global cooling, but this was driven by fear of a nuclear winter. All the global cooling 'research' was journalist bullshit at best.

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to modern climatologists the cooling trend Mitchell was trying to explain with volcanos never existed at all ... and anyone who says otherwise is a malicious liar Who are the modern climatologists that are saying that the data recorded and reported by Mitchell does not exist? Are you saying that the NASA data graph is false for 1940-1975? I couldn't find any graph in Mitchell's paper.

Yes, it's been changed. Mitchell's paper doesn't have a graph but there are plenty that do. On mobile now but if you research this topic (don't use Google) you can find graphs that show the per year deltas from older data sources to newer. It's not a secret they do this, they admit it when people find out, but it's never brought up by those who are pushing doom for obvious reasons (+the edits specifically created a s…

Can you please cite these older "non-falsified" graphs directly instead of providing vague instructions like "don't use Google "?

I don't care about engaging in debates about editorial language.

I would also like to see some citations about these modern climatologists claiming that the data from 1940-75 are malicious lies.

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#120
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change can not be solved by individual action. It's a ridiculous idea to propose this in the first place. Governments are supposed to solve Tragedy of the Commons through regulation. The Common who takes it on himself will lose everything to gain nothing. government intervention such ad carbon tax and EV subsidies and actions like the green new deal are what is needed.

> Climate change can not be solved by individual action. It's a ridiculous idea to propose this in the first place. I... No Again please stop focusing on what I'm not saying. And btw there are huge environmental impacts that can be made that build up from bet actions of individuals and societal change. Ignoring that is frankly inconsistent or dishonest. It's a different scale to Chinas industrial pollution but I'm bo…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN