Climate Change(d)?

[GenesisNemesis]

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

Far too sophisticated and nuanced for TSwizzle.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your argument is still just "science used to say x!" Uh, okay? Science used to say a lot of other things too.

Science didn't say that. The press interpreted what science did say as "that" and Leonard Nimoy and Robert Fripp/Peter Gabriel made songs about it. None of the press or musical works were peer reviewed.

I know. I'm saying his argument fails even if we accept the premise.

You forget that failing arguments are buoyed by rolling eyes.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

Far too sophisticated and nuanced for TSwizzle.

I'll make it simple. The concept that scientists believed the climate was cooling was a myth. It was a myth. It was a myth. It was a myth. Is that simple enough for Mr.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

Far too sophisticated and nuanced for TSwizzle.

I'll make it simple. The concept that scientists believed the climate was cooling was a myth. It was a myth. It was a myth. It was a myth. Is that simple enough for Mr.

I might start calling him Eyerolls McGee.

 

[steve_bank]

The earth has warmed and cooled, warm and cooled. In the 70s the “scientists” were worried about a coming ice age. You should be thankful that we have avoided it.

I’d really like to know how the “scientists” propose to stop earth’s climate from ever changing. More cycle lanes in Santa Monica? lol!!

And again yes you are right.

But the question is what is the cause of the current year by year temperature rise and effects thereof? And of course you never have an answer.

There has always been wildfires, but estimates are about 80% or more of our wildfires today are human caused.

I know following analogies is not your strong suit.

 

[southernhybrid]

Apparently, it's worse that some of us thought.

https://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org

Human activities have pushed Earth beyond its Safe Operating Space. The planet's natural resilience is weakening: Global warming is accelerating, ecosystems are showing clear signs of degradation, and early warning signs of tipping points are emerging in key systems. We have entered the Anthropocene — an era where human activity dominates the Earth system.

To safeguard the Earth's resilience and stability, we must bringthe planet back into its Planetary Boundaries. These boundaries are scientifically defined guardrails that ensure the Earth's health. Stay within them, and the Earth stays our dependable home — breach them, and we risk irreversible damage to our very own life support system. Today, seven out of nine boundaries have been transgressed.

The Planetary Health Check is a yearly report on the state of our planet. It presents the most up-to-date assessments of the Planetary Boundaries, gives thorough introductions into cutting-edge science, and spotlights especially relevant aspects of our planet's health. In this 2026 edition, we place a special focus on carbon sinks and novel entities.

You can click on the link and access the full report, that goes into a lot of detail regarding what are called, the 9 Planetary Boundaries.

 

[TSwizzle]

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

Far too sophisticated and nuanced for TSwizzle.

I'll make it simple. The concept that scientists believed the climate was cooling was a myth. It was a myth. It was a myth. It was a myth. Is that simple enough for Mr.

You know what else is a myth? The planet is burning, the oceans are boiling and we are all gonna die!!!!1111!!!111.

 

[TSwizzle]

Apparently, it's worse that some of us thought.

https://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org

Human activities have pushed Earth beyond its Safe Operating Space. The planet's natural resilience is weakening: Global warming is accelerating, ecosystems are showing clear signs of degradation, and early warning signs of tipping points are emerging in key systems. We have entered the Anthropocene — an era where human activity dominates the Earth system.

To safeguard the Earth's resilience and stability, we must bringthe planet back into its Planetary Boundaries. These boundaries are scientifically defined guardrails that ensure the Earth's health. Stay within them, and the Earth stays our dependable home — breach them, and we risk irreversible damage to our very own life support system. Today, seven out of nine boundaries have been transgressed.

The Planetary Health Check is a yearly report on the state of our planet. It presents the most up-to-date assessments of the Planetary Boundaries, gives thorough introductions into cutting-edge science, and spotlights especially relevant aspects of our planet's health. In this 2026 edition, we place a special focus on carbon sinks and novel entities.

You can click on the link and access the full report, that goes into a lot of detail regarding what are called, the 9 Planetary Boundaries.

Who takes that claptrap seriously?

 

[Elixir]

Who takes that claptrap seriously?

Nobody you’d take seriously.
Just scientists.
Not worth wasting your last two neurons on It.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Oh, there goes Eyerolls McGee again.

 

[DBT]

The earth has warmed and cooled, warm and cooled. In the 70s the “scientists” were worried about a coming ice age. You should be thankful that we have avoided it.

I’d really like to know how the “scientists” propose to stop earth’s climate from ever changing. More cycle lanes in Santa Monica? lol!!

According to the evidence, it's what we are adding to the process that's the issue.

He doesn't comprehend basic addition.

He only believes what he wants to believe.

The earth’s climate is variable.

Oh, I forgot to mention, it is a catastrophic 70 degrees in San Diego just now.

The earths climate does vary, but you forgot to take into account or mention our activity and contribution.

 

[Elixir]

Republitards are baffled by multi variant phenomena like “rate of change”.

 

[TSwizzle]

The earth has warmed and cooled, warm and cooled. In the 70s the “scientists” were worried about a coming ice age. You should be thankful that we have avoided it.

I’d really like to know how the “scientists” propose to stop earth’s climate from ever changing. More cycle lanes in Santa Monica? lol!!

According to the evidence, it's what we are adding to the process that's the issue.

He doesn't comprehend basic addition.

He only believes what he wants to believe.

The earth’s climate is variable.

Oh, I forgot to mention, it is a catastrophic 70 degrees in San Diego just now.

The earths climate does vary, but you forgot to take into account or mention our activity and contribution.

The way people carry on here, it’s only human activity that changes the earth’s climate these days. lol.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who takes that claptrap seriously?

Nobody you’d take seriously.
Just scientists.
Not worth wasting your last two neurons on It.

Sorry, but it is rather claptrap. The idea that there is a long term sustainable population with current technology is nonsense. Cutting back can push the survival limit out past some arbitrary boundary but it is just kicking the can down an ever-narrowing road. If there is a solution it will come from technology, not conservation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Republitards are baffled by multi variant phenomena like “rate of change”.

That's either differential equations or calculus depending on how you look at it. That's math. We don't need no stinking math! They'll even predigest Jesus for you so you don't even need to read the Bible.

And those idiots are talking about the increasing rate of change. That is, the rate of change of the rate of change. Circular nonsense!