cont'd ...

Apologies for the typo. Here's the link again:

http://phys.org/news/2018-12-southwest-forest-trees-slower-21st.html

SR,
Said “Still banging on are we? “

For those that don’t know SR, this is his way of admitting that he monumentally screwed up and would now like everyone to never mention it again.

An admission of error isn’t in SR’s lexicon.

Screwed up. Well he claimed that “The initial impetus for global temperature research was the fact that solar cycles had predicted a cooling planet yet midway through the last century it was instead it was found to be warming”. In fact there wasn’t a warming but a cooling (as he now sort of admits) just as the “solar cycles had predicted”. Perhaps that tells you something? Solar cycles predict cooling…there is a cooling. But SR then decides the solar cycles have nothing to do with it.
As is his want he continues to get it wrong. In fact the decline in temperatures started in the mid 1940’s and ended in the mid 1970s which is why there was so much angst around a mini ice age during the early 1970s.
Hilariously SR is happy to assert that others are “a pack of buffoons. There is not a scientific bone in any of you” yet makes these monumental errors of fact and then blusters about his superior understanding of the issue based upon his erroneous facts.

No wonder he wants me to stop talking about it.

Dear mhaze,

Good grief mate. Why do you continue to exhibit such poor comprehension skills. I expressly referred to the middle of the last century, not the latter half which you are now banging on about.

Okay a little history lesson for you then.

Glacial advances over a long period had given credence to the thought another ice age was coming prompting expeditions like this one in 1923;

“Captain Donald B. MacMillan, who will sail from here June 16 on the little schooner Bowdoin to resume his arctic explorations, announced today that one purpose of the expedition is to determine whether there is beginning another ice age, as the advance of glaciers in the last seventy years would indicate.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1923/05/28/archives/macmillan-to-seek-signs-of-new-ice-age-his-expedition-equipped-for.html

Callendar's work was based on temperature increases since the start of the century and was an explanation of why the world's temperature was increasing when it was thought it should have been cooling.

A lot of research into the impact of CO2 on temperature was generated from his efforts.

For instance Kaplan in 1952 showed that adding more CO2 to the upper atmosphere must inevitably change the balance of radiation. It was physicist Plass in 1956 who worked on calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmoshere. From that he detailed how doubling the CO2 levels would see a 3-4C temperature rise.

The one I particularly liked was Suess' work in 1955. As a chemist he found that the newer the wood in trees grown over the last century the higher the ratio of plain carbon compared to carbon-14 which indicated an increase in atmospheric fossil carbon.

All this work was being done in the 50s.

Sure global maximum daytime temperatures were to decline from the mid 40s to the 70s but the cat was out of the bag. Recognition of the role of CO2 on global temperatures had been flagged and actively was being researched.

I have happily apologised for errors on this forum before but don't think I have ever needed to you. I think it is patently clear why that is the case.

SR

Yeah because 1950 wasn't the middle of the century.

What a bozo.

Dear Steele,

mhaze is behaving like you're a chocolate
ice - cream and he doesn't have a spoon.

I think he likes you.

SR,

Try not to be such a weasel, firstly you deliberately misquote someone then you try to bollocks your way out of your previous cock up.

You are worst than that lying old trout Gillian Triggs.