NY Times Forecasts The End of Skiing

[cancel2 2022]

You claimed that the global warming "hysteria" has been going on since back when that NYT article was written.

But the article was not about global warming or climate change.

There was no such concept back then.

It was about a spell of unseasonably warm weather.

Period.

Climate hysteria goes way back, it's nothing new! Both WaPo and NYT were an integral part of it.


According to a November 2, 1922, Associated Press report published in The Washington Post, “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

“Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”

This warming apparently began before the Industrial Revolution. A March 27, 1933, headline in The New York Times proclaimed, “America in Longest Warm Spell since 1776; Temperature Tine Records a 25-Year Rise.” Five years later the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society thought that this was a good thing. They noted that heating the planet with carbon dioxide “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”

Those previously beneficial rising temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during the 1930s were followed by about three decades of cooling which began in the 1940s. As CO2 levels continued to rise, that cooling, a new crisis, was attributed to humans also.

Deforestation was allegedly increasing Earth’s surface reflectivity, causing sunlight to bounce back into space without heating the surface — and smokestack particulate emissions were blocking out light before it got here.

A 1970 Life Magazine article predicted that, “(B)y 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one-half.” The situation was dire. As Science Digest reported in 1973, “At this point we do not have the comfortable distance of tens of thousands of years to prepare for the next Ice Age, and that how carefully we monitor our atmospheric pollution will have direct bearing on the arrival and nature of the weather crisis.” Consequently, the scientists warned “Once the freeze starts, it will be too late.”

A 1974 Time Magazine article, asked (and answered) its big jackpot title question “Another Ice Age?” It concluded, “When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find the atmosphere has been gradually colder for the past three decades . . . and the winter aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another Ice Age.”

https://www.cfact.org/2017/06/19/dec...orted-by-data/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warm-welcome/

[ExpressLane]

Boxing is safer than skiing. Never seen a leg broken from boxing.

I use to work in a hospital in Denver. I was funny to walk be the ER on Mondays and see the pile of cardboard splints they put injured legs at the clinics near the ski resorts. Some days their would be a dozen or more. And that is just one hospital.

[Matt Dillon]

That’s OK. I predicted that my Bengals would win a NFL playoff game this year and they did that today for the first time in 31 years. So it just goes to show you an old blind hog can find an acorn every now and then.

You see it like that. I see it like an old blind hog can ruin a lot of stuff in 20 minutes and needs to die. It is what it is.

Other ol' boy that used to work with me says he shoots them with a .17 HMR. He claims it's good to 3-400 yards.

I think I need some wading boots. He might not be bullshittin' though.

[Nomad]

Climate hysteria goes way back, it's nothing new! Both WaPo and NYT were an integral part of it.


According to a November 2, 1922, Associated Press report published in The Washington Post, “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

“Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”

This warming apparently began before the Industrial Revolution. A March 27, 1933, headline in The New York Times proclaimed, “America in Longest Warm Spell since 1776; Temperature Tine Records a 25-Year Rise.” Five years later the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society thought that this was a good thing. They noted that heating the planet with carbon dioxide “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”

Those previously beneficial rising temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during the 1930s were followed by about three decades of cooling which began in the 1940s. As CO2 levels continued to rise, that cooling, a new crisis, was attributed to humans also.

Deforestation was allegedly increasing Earth’s surface reflectivity, causing sunlight to bounce back into space without heating the surface — and smokestack particulate emissions were blocking out light before it got here.

A 1970 Life Magazine article predicted that, “(B)y 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one-half.” The situation was dire. As Science Digest reported in 1973, “At this point we do not have the comfortable distance of tens of thousands of years to prepare for the next Ice Age, and that how carefully we monitor our atmospheric pollution will have direct bearing on the arrival and nature of the weather crisis.” Consequently, the scientists warned “Once the freeze starts, it will be too late.”

A 1974 Time Magazine article, asked (and answered) its big jackpot title question “Another Ice Age?” It concluded, “When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find the atmosphere has been gradually colder for the past three decades . . . and the winter aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another Ice Age.”

https://www.cfact.org/2017/06/19/dec...orted-by-data/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warm-welcome/

They started talking about and predicting the greenhouse effect in the 1970's, not the 1940's.

Either way, smart, sane people with common sense believe the experts.

Even if they might get parts of it wrong now and then, overall they know a helluva lot more about it than you do.

So I'll stick to believing them and you can cast your lot with the kooks and denier weirdos.

Climate, COVID, the election, J6.... whatever.

Go ahead and side with the goofballs on all of it.

[Sailor]

The world could be covered in a shallow ocean with no land left, and he'd still be starting these threads.

Good lord Bartender. Just go down to the ocean....

[cancel2 2022]

They started talking about and predicting the greenhouse effect in the 1970's, not the 1940's.

Either way, smart, sane people with common sense believe the experts.

Even if they might get parts of it wrong now and then, overall they know a helluva lot more about it than you do.

So I'll stick to believing them and you can cast your lot with the kooks and denier weirdos.

Climate, COVID, the election, J6.... whatever.

Go ahead and side with the goofballs on all of it.

Please, you must know by now that I know far more than you about climate change and the history behind it. Arrhenius and Ångström were working on the science well over a hundred years ago. Surprised that you didn't mention tobacco whilst you were about it.


Pick Your A-Team: Arrhenius or Ångström

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana 1905

Interesting that Svante Arrhenius was elevated as the founder of AGW belief system. He was ignored for many decades after Knut Ångström and his assistant Herr Koch showed that reducing CO2 concentrations did not affect the amount of IR absorbed by the air. That’s almost as interesting as discovering that shutting down the global economy over fear of Covid19 has little effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

As a fellow Scandinavian, Ångström agreed with Arrhenius that his projected warming would be a good thing, even in the lower estimates Svante made later on. Still, Ångström had two objections to Arrhenius’ conjecture about global warming from increasing CO2. In 1900, Herr J. Koch, laboratory assistant to Knut Ångström, did not observe any appreciable change in the absorption of infrared radiation by decreasing the concentration of CO2 up to a third of the initial amount. This result, in addition to the observation made a couple of years before that the superposition of the water vapour absorption bands, more abundant in the atmosphere, over those of CO2, convinced most geologists that calculations by Svante Arrhenius for CO2 warming were wrong.

Ångström’s 1900 paper (english translation) was About the importance of water vapor and carbon dioxide during the absorption of the Earth’s atmosphere Title is link to pdf. Conclusion:

Under no circumstances should carbon dioxide absorb more than 16 percent of terrestrial radiation, and the size of this absorption varies quantitatively very little, as long as there is not less than 20 percent of the existing value. The main alteration caused by a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide content, is that the absorption exerted by the carbon dioxide (about 16 percent of the radiation) is only completed by a thicker atmospheric layer, so that the heat is a little more dispersed in the atmosphere.

Many decades passed without reference to Arrhenius until the AGW movement took off in the 1980s and advocates wanted an ancient founder for their ideas. Obviously, Ångström’s position had to be destroyed by articles at RealClimate and Wikipedia (the same team after all.) So it is now declared that Arrhenius was right and Ångström wrong, based on some claims about “line-broadening” and the famous raised Effective Radiating Level (ERL). Ångström’s experimental results were not overturned but were deemed the” Saturation Fallacy”. Meanwhile,today’s climate realists acknowledge that the IR absorption by CO2 is logarithmic with diminishing returns. Attempts to find the raised ERL in modern satellite and balloon datasets have also failed, but alarmists are undaunted.

https://rclutz.com/2020/05/25/pick-y...s-or-angstrom/

[cancel2 2022]

Good lord Bartender. Just go down to the ocean....

Lol, he should spend less time with Jim and Jack.

[cancel2 2022]

Fixed that for you!

Good lord Bartender. Just go drown in the ocean....

[cancel2 2022]

.
Global warming appeals to the left because :

It blames humans
The solution is more government control
The solution is more taxes
The solution is less personal freedom
The solution is wealth redistribution
It has little to do with science.

[Nomad]

Please, you must know by now that I know far more than you about climate change and the history behind it. Arrhenius and Ångström were working on the science well over a hundred years ago. Surprised that you didn't mention tobacco whilst you were about it.


Pick Your A-Team: Arrhenius or Ångström

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana 1905

Interesting that Svante Arrhenius was elevated as the founder of AGW belief system. He was ignored for many decades after Knut Ångström and his assistant Herr Koch showed that reducing CO2 concentrations did not affect the amount of IR absorbed by the air. That’s almost as interesting as discovering that shutting down the global economy over fear of Covid19 has little effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

As a fellow Scandinavian, Ångström agreed with Arrhenius that his projected warming would be a good thing, even in the lower estimates Svante made later on. Still, Ångström had two objections to Arrhenius’ conjecture about global warming from increasing CO2. In 1900, Herr J. Koch, laboratory assistant to Knut Ångström, did not observe any appreciable change in the absorption of infrared radiation by decreasing the concentration of CO2 up to a third of the initial amount. This result, in addition to the observation made a couple of years before that the superposition of the water vapour absorption bands, more abundant in the atmosphere, over those of CO2, convinced most geologists that calculations by Svante Arrhenius for CO2 warming were wrong.

Ångström’s 1900 paper (english translation) was About the importance of water vapor and carbon dioxide during the absorption of the Earth’s atmosphere Title is link to pdf. Conclusion:

Under no circumstances should carbon dioxide absorb more than 16 percent of terrestrial radiation, and the size of this absorption varies quantitatively very little, as long as there is not less than 20 percent of the existing value. The main alteration caused by a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide content, is that the absorption exerted by the carbon dioxide (about 16 percent of the radiation) is only completed by a thicker atmospheric layer, so that the heat is a little more dispersed in the atmosphere.

Many decades passed without reference to Arrhenius until the AGW movement took off in the 1980s and advocates wanted an ancient founder for their ideas. Obviously, Ångström’s position had to be destroyed by articles at RealClimate and Wikipedia (the same team after all.) So it is now declared that Arrhenius was right and Ångström wrong, based on some claims about “line-broadening” and the famous raised Effective Radiating Level (ERL). Ångström’s experimental results were not overturned but were deemed the” Saturation Fallacy”. Meanwhile,today’s climate realists acknowledge that the IR absorption by CO2 is logarithmic with diminishing returns. Attempts to find the raised ERL in modern satellite and balloon datasets have also failed, but alarmists are undaunted.

Wait a minute.... the partisan, agenda driven idiots who wrote that bullshit article and the low foreheads like you who buy it, want us to believe that BEFORE THE WIDESPREAD USE OF FOSSIL FUELS... these guys were saying that carbon emissions from automobiles which did not exist yet and factories which existed at a mere fraction of the number that they did by the mid and late 20th century, were pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to the point that it was raising CO2 levels enough to cause the average global temperature to rise???

Really????

You actually expect anyone in their right mind to believe that????

I get the impression you don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do about anything related to climatology.

[Nomad]

.
Global warming appeals to the left because :

It blames humans
The solution is more government control
The solution is more taxes
The solution is less personal freedom
The solution is wealth redistribution
It has little to do with science.

Denial of global warming appeals to the right because :

It blames humans and they can't stand being blamed for anything even if the shoe fits.
They hate government control unless it's their guys doing the controlling.
They despise paying ANY taxes
They think personal freedom is more important than maintaining a livable environment.
They think wealth should remain in the hands of a tiny percentage of greedy assholes.
It has to do with science, something else they hate.

[RB 60]

It doesn't help some rich bastard (along with so many others) poking holes in our atmosphere with his flying blue penis...

[anonymoose]

The debate is over. I can't believe you're still arguing this stuff.

We need to act immediately. This is an emergency situation - we don't have any more time.

.Bullshit. We have 12 more years. Then it's over.

[cancel2 2022]

Wait a minute.... the partisan, agenda driven idiots who wrote that bullshit article and the low foreheads like you who buy it, want us to believe that BEFORE THE WIDESPREAD USE OF FOSSIL FUELS... these guys were saying that carbon emissions from automobiles which did not exist yet and factories which existed at a mere fraction of the number that they did by the mid and late 20th century, were pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to the point that it was raising CO2 levels enough to cause the average global temperature to rise???

Really????

You actually expect anyone in their right mind to believe that????

I get the impression you don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do about anything related to climatology.

Ok, I knew it wouldn't take long for you to get to this stage, it always does so sayanora.

[RB 60]

That’s OK. I predicted that my Bengals would win a NFL playoff game this year and they did that today for the first time in 31 years. So it just goes to show you an old blind hog can find an acorn every now and then.

With a little help from the refs and assholes in NY making stupid decisions.