Yerda
Veteran Member
Well, I'm all for tightening lobbying rules and preventing regulatory capture and so on. If that results in freer markets then woohoo.
Is it just me or are loads of anti-corporate capitalists popping up lately?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.
- Thread starter ThePainefulTruth
- Start date
Is it just me or are loads of anti-corporate capitalists popping up lately?
siti
Well-Known Member
Yeah - I think its because they realize they've been left behind in the capitalist supreme wealth stakes but are afraid to admit they mistakenly thought they had a dog in that race to start with.
Debateable
Member
I didn't say regulating the size of a business. Never suggested anything like that at all. A real free market system would do that for us. So you don't think it's bad that our current system prevents competition? What is good for everyone is choice. That keeps a business on point and doing whatever they can to satisfy their customers. If they know they don't have to, they get bloated and lazy. Sure, there may be some business turnover and jobs lost, but there would also be jobs created. Products will be brought to market that otherwise wouldn't. Also good for the consumer. Competition keeps prices down as well. Again, good for the consumer. Also, you prevent Lobbying by making it illegal.
As for the climate change stuff. There are plenty of credible scientists that are saying we need to pump the breaks. Many of those pushing AGW are blocking papers from the peer review process. I'm going to link you a couple videos of three scientists that disagree and aren't paid by oil or anyone else. In fact, if you want to make money, you go into the AGW side. Over 150 BILLION dollars has been spent on AGW research since 1995. Billion! This woman that left her university said she did so because you were only allowed to search for man's effect and not natural causes (paraphrasing)
For the record, I'm not a Fox fan, just happened to be on their channel that the interview was done. You could tell she was a little annoyed, lol.
siti
Well-Known Member
Nope - tried that, didn't work.
Judith Curry, sadly, isn't one of them...I'm not going to waste any more time - you can find the science if you want to - hint - its not on Fox News.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Out of curiosity, what's up with Judith Curry? She doesn't strike me as a fraud or a shill.
siti
Well-Known Member
Check out Curry's public support of the Wegman report in this archived page - you may be aware that the Wegman report was later confirmed to have contained a significant proportion of plagiarized material (some from textbooks and even a section from Wikipedia!) as well as a number of grade-school level scientific errors. Curry later admitted that when she made those comments, she had not even read the report but had formed an opinion of it based on information gleaned from the Climate Audit and Watts Up With That blogs. You can check those out and see what you make of the "science" there. You might also want to check out Curry's own blog and decide whether you agree that my characterization of the 'denialist' approach of 'sewing seeds of doubt' based on the deliberate misinterpretation of the scientific community's honest reporting of scientific uncertainty is accurate or not.
In another blog comment she states "it is very difficult to have confidence in the attribution statement for the latter half of the 2oth century, if we cannot explain the warming in the earlier period." referring to the uncertainty of attributing early 20th century warming to anthropogenic sources. What she is saying here is that because we cannot be certain that human activity was implicated in warming between 1900 and 1950, we cannot have reasonable scientific confidence that human activity was implicated in warming between 1950 and 2000. Obviously that is an absurd statement - and if it were true would render her own entire scientific career meaningless - but we clearly have much more complete and accurate data for the later period than for the early 20th century, so it is much easier to draw conclusions with confidence about the causes of global warming over the last half century than over any previous period. Its hard to imagine a respected scientist making such an obviously bizarre and anti-scientific claim unless they have a particular non-scientific agenda.
She is, of course, as entitled as anyone to have an opinion - but when she airs a non-scientific opinion, as she is apt to do in recent years, she is not speaking as a 'credible scientist' no matter what her CV says.
Last edited:
Debateable
Member
If that's true then why are the climate models so horribly wrong. If that's true, why have we had extremely minute warming the last 20 years? It just doesn't add up...
siti
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry - in what way are the models "horribly wrong"? And where is the data that shows we have had 'extremely minute warming the last 20 years'? Perhaps this paper will answer both questions for you (although not the 'horribly' bit). And even if these two statements were true (which of course they are not) - what does that have to do with Judith Curry speaking through her...um...er...hat? Are you connecting these because you are doing the same as she did - just repeating something you heard somewhere without bothering to verify the accuracy of the statements?
Last edited:
Debateable
Member
Where did you get that I was connecting those statements with Judith Curry? There were other scientists speaking there that I had linked. Did you even pay attention to those?
You can see from the end of the El Nino of 1998 through the one in 2016 that temperatures as a whole haven't changed a lot.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2017_v6-550x317.jpg
Here is a graph of all the climate models vs observed reality from balloons and satelites.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Then there is this nugget, which cracks me up that they try to dismiss this as if it's not significant and most likely not the reason we had the majority of the warming we've had over the last century.
Sun's Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms
siti
Well-Known Member
Hmmm! Maybe this quote from the last link you just posted will 'crack you up' even more (it really helps if you actually read the stuff you link to):
"During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level, but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency toward increasing temperatures," Usoskin explained.
He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
As for the graphs, well the good Dr Spencer loves his graphs - and he also loves God's divine providence in giving us a planet that is immune to human mismanagement of natural resources (especially oil) which is presumably why he is one of the more prominent signatories of the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming of the Cornwall Alliance (which, it should be pointed out, has strong links to organizations openly funded by, among others, Exxon-Mobil and Chevron). Here's part of the text of the Declaration: He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
He has done some great work on refining our understanding of the positive and negative feedback aspects of climate models, but his opinion seems to be more in line with his conservative theistic ideology than the current state of the science he is contributing to. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
Debateable
Member
First off, his graphs are direct data from the satellites, so I understand your angst in his spiritual beliefs, that doesn't change the fact that the temps have been relatively stable for the last 20 years. Why do you think the terminology changed from Global Warming to Climate change? Ever heard of "the pause"?
In the solar activity link I shared if you would have read what I was saying, I was basically suggesting that they tried to blow off solar activity by saying there "had to be other dominating factors". Strange thing is that if you take the increased solar activity and then it stabilizing at a higher intensity, you get almost exactly what you see in Dr. Spencer's graph. Increased temps over the last century with stabilized higher temps for the last few decades. Or are you going to say that it's strictly coincidental?
siti
Well-Known Member
Yes I have heard of the pause and this has been explained as an artifact of the way the data was collected in a paper I provided a link to in response to your making this claim yesterday. And the author of the solar activity study clearly states that whilst solar activity was indeed increasing and did indeed seem to correlate with global warming during the first half of the 20th century, during the later half century, solar activity was stable but the temperature continued to rise. When you get a discontinuity in correlation like that, it might mean that the correlation is not significant - IOW a causal relationship has not been established - or at least it is not sufficient on its own to account for all the variation in the data - as the author himself said, there must be other causes involved. And, in fact, we have a pretty shrewd idea what at least one of them might be - increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The problem of the apparent over-estimation of warming in the atmosphere in the models compared to measured temperatures is well known but the second graph you showed still shows a generally positive (warming) trend - the graph doesn't indicate which average is used for comparison and the actual data cuts off at 2012 (odd given that the data is available up to and including January 2017 but possibly not significant).
The first graph is much easier to interpret, and also shows a generally positive trend (you can see it much more easily on this one because it has a moving average trendline as well as the actual data points. Notice how the red line is more consistently above the time axis as you move right and below it as you go to the left? That means the trend is positive and indicates that the global lower atmosphere temperature has been increasing over the period 1979 to 2017 compared to the 1981 to 2010 average. Of course we don't have any satellite data before 1979. Also note there is not a single data point below the 1981 to 2010 average since about 2012 on this graph. Compare that to the first 5 years where almost all the points are below the average. Dr Spencer's own latest interpretation of the current data is a positive warming trend of 0.114 deg C/decade or about 1.1 degrees C per century, which is admittedly lower than some other estimates but it is still a significant positive trend and its still faster than the overall trend of warming (about 0.7 deg per century) in the last century. As the earth emerged from the last ice age, the temperature increased by an average of about 0.1 degree per century. Even Dr Spencer's data shows that we are bettering that rise every decade at present. It might not be the runaway warming that the less conservative models predicted, but it remains a significant and worrying trend even on the most conservative scientific estimates IMO.
Last edited:
Debateable
Member
Sorry but I'm not buying it... I clearly showed you that the temps didn't continue to rise and they stabilized almost 20 years ago, correlating almost perfectly with the sun's activity. Warmists like to try and discount weather balloons and satellite data for their beloved thermometers. Which cover such a minuscule part of the Earth AND extremely susceptible to errors (UHI effect, etc). Not only that, but they get to fudge (average) the data for the rest of the planet (which they admit they do). However this is poor in practice because many area's in between have completely different values than what the area gets averaged to.
People have been asking for the data on many different issues from the warmists but, surprise surprise, they refuse to give up their data so nobody can replicate their work, nor see where any flaws may lie. If they are on the right side, why are they hiding their data? Michael Mann was really bad at this when he created his "Hockey Stick" graph which was later proven to be a huge fraud. Don't come back at me saying his work was replicated thus correct because anyone with a brain could see that his buddies were trying to prop him up. You can't take well known periods of time in Earth and scrub them off of your graph to fit your agenda and not expect people to notice.
I never said warming completely stopped, just that it stabilized, which is exactly what you'd expect if the sun also stabilized it's output.
Debateable
Member
Here's some real science:
"Read over most any explanation of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis that you find on the Internet and notice the following. The explanations will say that the ground, which has been warmed by the sun, will emit infrared radiation, but they will rarely point out that this emission of infrared radiation cools the ground. They will then point out that “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere absorb some of the infrared radiation that the ground emits, which causes atmospheric warming. They will then point out that the warmed atmosphere will emit infrared radiation back towards the ground, which they say will warm the ground even further. A fact that is always left out of articles on the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the fact that the emission of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases” cools the atmosphere as its thermal energy is drained to create the infrared radiation. The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis only sounds plausible because it only looks at one side of the equation—absorption of infrared radiation causes warming. The other side of the equation is that the emission of infrared radiation causes cooling. I did the above experiment myself and this is what I found in the first 25 explanations of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis found under the Google search “greenhouse effect.”
1) 100% mentioned that the ground is warmed by sunlight.
2) 100% mentioned that the ground emits IR radiation.
3) Only 12% mentioned that the emission of IR radiation by the ground causes cooling of the ground.
4) 100% mentioned that the absorption of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases” causes atmospheric warming.
5) 100% mentioned that warmed “greenhouse gases” emit infrared radiation.
6) 0% mentioned that the emission of IR radiation by “greenhouse gases” causes atmospheric cooling.
7) 100% mentioned that the absorption of IR radiation emitted by “greenhouse gases” warms the earth.
8) Only 8% mentioned that the atmosphere is also warmed by conduction, convection and latent heat (evaporation/condensation of water vapor.)
So, when you omit the fact that both the ground and the atmosphere are continually being cooled via the emission of infrared radiation and leave out the fact that the atmosphere is also warmed by conduction, convection and the evaporation/condensation of water vapor you get this typical definition of the “greenhouse effect.”
1) The ground is warmed by sunlight
2) The ground emits IR radiation
3)
4) The absorption of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases” causes atmospheric warming
5) Warmed “greenhouse gases” emit infrared radiation
6)
7) The absorption of IR radiation emitted by “greenhouse gases” warms the ground
8)
To demonstrate the effect that the absorption and emission of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases” has on atmospheric temperature let’s use the following mathematical formula.
T + A – E = T∆
T – Starting Temperature of the atmosphere
A – Heat acquired from the Absorption of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gas”
E – Heat lost due to the Emission of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases”
T∆ – Net Temperature Change due to the absorption and emission of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases”
If Absorption > Emission = temperature goes up.
If Emission > Absorption = temperature goes down.
If Absorption is the same as Emission = temperature stays the same.
The crux is this; the addition of heat into the atmosphere by convection mediated conduction and latent heat transfer causes the atmosphere’s temperature to increase without an increase of infrared radiation absorption. This increase in atmospheric heat causes the “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere to increase their emission of infrared radiation. As a result “greenhouse gases” perpetually emit more infrared radiation than they absorb and therefore have a perpetual net cooling effect on the atmosphere as they work to expel this excess heat from the air. Unfortunately the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis changes the perpetual cooling effect of “greenhouse gases” into a perpetual warming effect by omitting two parts of the equation.
The first omission is the fact that the atmosphere is partly (as much as 50% at times ) warmed by convection mediated conduction and latent heat transfer and the other omission is the fact that the emission of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases” cools the atmosphere. This leaves the warming effect of the absorption of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases” the only force in operation. Consequent to these omissions any addition of more “greenhouse gas” to the atmosphere will be seen to only cause more absorption of infrared radiation and therefore be seen to always cause more warming.
Because of convection mediated conduction and latent heat transfer the atmosphere will always be warmer than it would have been through the absorption of infrared radiation alone. Therefore “greenhouse gases” will perpetually be compelled by this extra heat to emit more infrared radiation than they simultaneously absorb. Ergo “greenhouse gases” will have a perpetual, net cooling effect on the atmosphere.
Let’s return to our flashlight analogy and ask, “How can ‘greenhouse gases’ emit more infrared radiation than they absorb?” Answer: in the same way that a flashlight can emit light without having first absorbed light, the emission of infrared radiation represents the conversion of one form of energy to another. It represents conversion the kinetic thermal energy contained in the atmosphere into the electromagnetic energy of infrared radiation thus cooling the atmosphere regardless of where the heat came from in the first place. It is no more complicated than that; adding “greenhouse gases” to the atmosphere increases the ability of the atmosphere to emit more infrared radiation at a lower temperature and this drains heat from the atmosphere like the emission of light from a flashlight drains power from the flashlight’s batteries. If it were otherwise, if “greenhouse gases” actually had a warming effect upon the atmosphere rather than a cooling effect, the only method that the atmosphere has of cooling itself would be absent, which it demonstrably is not."
-- Carl Brehmer, PhD
"Read over most any explanation of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis that you find on the Internet and notice the following. The explanations will say that the ground, which has been warmed by the sun, will emit infrared radiation, but they will rarely point out that this emission of infrared radiation cools the ground. They will then point out that “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere absorb some of the infrared radiation that the ground emits, which causes atmospheric warming. They will then point out that the warmed atmosphere will emit infrared radiation back towards the ground, which they say will warm the ground even further. A fact that is always left out of articles on the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the fact that the emission of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases” cools the atmosphere as its thermal energy is drained to create the infrared radiation. The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis only sounds plausible because it only looks at one side of the equation—absorption of infrared radiation causes warming. The other side of the equation is that the emission of infrared radiation causes cooling. I did the above experiment myself and this is what I found in the first 25 explanations of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis found under the Google search “greenhouse effect.”
1) 100% mentioned that the ground is warmed by sunlight.
2) 100% mentioned that the ground emits IR radiation.
3) Only 12% mentioned that the emission of IR radiation by the ground causes cooling of the ground.
4) 100% mentioned that the absorption of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases” causes atmospheric warming.
5) 100% mentioned that warmed “greenhouse gases” emit infrared radiation.
6) 0% mentioned that the emission of IR radiation by “greenhouse gases” causes atmospheric cooling.
7) 100% mentioned that the absorption of IR radiation emitted by “greenhouse gases” warms the earth.
8) Only 8% mentioned that the atmosphere is also warmed by conduction, convection and latent heat (evaporation/condensation of water vapor.)
So, when you omit the fact that both the ground and the atmosphere are continually being cooled via the emission of infrared radiation and leave out the fact that the atmosphere is also warmed by conduction, convection and the evaporation/condensation of water vapor you get this typical definition of the “greenhouse effect.”
1) The ground is warmed by sunlight
2) The ground emits IR radiation
3)
4) The absorption of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases” causes atmospheric warming
5) Warmed “greenhouse gases” emit infrared radiation
6)
7) The absorption of IR radiation emitted by “greenhouse gases” warms the ground
8)
To demonstrate the effect that the absorption and emission of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases” has on atmospheric temperature let’s use the following mathematical formula.
T + A – E = T∆
T – Starting Temperature of the atmosphere
A – Heat acquired from the Absorption of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gas”
E – Heat lost due to the Emission of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases”
T∆ – Net Temperature Change due to the absorption and emission of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases”
If Absorption > Emission = temperature goes up.
If Emission > Absorption = temperature goes down.
If Absorption is the same as Emission = temperature stays the same.
The crux is this; the addition of heat into the atmosphere by convection mediated conduction and latent heat transfer causes the atmosphere’s temperature to increase without an increase of infrared radiation absorption. This increase in atmospheric heat causes the “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere to increase their emission of infrared radiation. As a result “greenhouse gases” perpetually emit more infrared radiation than they absorb and therefore have a perpetual net cooling effect on the atmosphere as they work to expel this excess heat from the air. Unfortunately the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis changes the perpetual cooling effect of “greenhouse gases” into a perpetual warming effect by omitting two parts of the equation.
The first omission is the fact that the atmosphere is partly (as much as 50% at times ) warmed by convection mediated conduction and latent heat transfer and the other omission is the fact that the emission of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases” cools the atmosphere. This leaves the warming effect of the absorption of infrared radiation by “greenhouse gases” the only force in operation. Consequent to these omissions any addition of more “greenhouse gas” to the atmosphere will be seen to only cause more absorption of infrared radiation and therefore be seen to always cause more warming.
Because of convection mediated conduction and latent heat transfer the atmosphere will always be warmer than it would have been through the absorption of infrared radiation alone. Therefore “greenhouse gases” will perpetually be compelled by this extra heat to emit more infrared radiation than they simultaneously absorb. Ergo “greenhouse gases” will have a perpetual, net cooling effect on the atmosphere.
Let’s return to our flashlight analogy and ask, “How can ‘greenhouse gases’ emit more infrared radiation than they absorb?” Answer: in the same way that a flashlight can emit light without having first absorbed light, the emission of infrared radiation represents the conversion of one form of energy to another. It represents conversion the kinetic thermal energy contained in the atmosphere into the electromagnetic energy of infrared radiation thus cooling the atmosphere regardless of where the heat came from in the first place. It is no more complicated than that; adding “greenhouse gases” to the atmosphere increases the ability of the atmosphere to emit more infrared radiation at a lower temperature and this drains heat from the atmosphere like the emission of light from a flashlight drains power from the flashlight’s batteries. If it were otherwise, if “greenhouse gases” actually had a warming effect upon the atmosphere rather than a cooling effect, the only method that the atmosphere has of cooling itself would be absent, which it demonstrably is not."
-- Carl Brehmer, PhD
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Dr. Richard Lindzen has sent a petition to President Trump, asking the President to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. The end of the global warming religion is near... 
Link to Petition Letter... Cloudup
Link to Petition Letter... Cloudup
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
First...in another topic...you have claim "climate change" is "socialism", and now in this new topic "climate change" is a religion.
Talk about desperation and red herring, from both you and the article.
The article is nothing more than exaggerated fear-mongering.
Climate change is about explaining the changes in global climates, finding evidences and testing it, and if there is a problem about finding solution to that problem. It is simply science, it is not politics (it is not socialism vs capitalism), it is not economics and it is not this ridiculous notion of religion.
Second, unchecked capitalism have done no one any favor, except to make rich people richer, as if they were above the law, doing what they like, when and wherever they like it, and screw any accountability and consequence.
Look at Greece for example, join the EU, the country didn't just exceeding spending, borrowings and credits, the problem with many of the rich Greek businessmen who have taken advantages of the political, economical and legal systems, where a number of them have shipped their wealth to tax haven nations and pay no taxes. Without the rich paying their taxes, everyone is screwed except those selfish big businesses, particularly the CEOs and boards of directors. And the Greek government and the law can't touch them.
That's unchecked capitalism at work.
This, minds you, my example of the Greek recession, has nothing to do with climate change. It is just example of the wonders of capitalism.
And minds you, again. I am not saying nations should ditch capitalism. There is nothing wrong with creating businesses and making profits, but a line needs to be drawn, and businesses that take advantages of the political and legal systems, there should be accountability, that should make these unscrupulous executives pay for the damages they have caused. Again, this has nothing to do with climate change.
I am just demonstrating SOME of the rich capitalists don't care about anything but themselves, particularly their wealth.
Debateable
Member
Greece ranks 127th in the Economic Freedom index and grouped in the Mostly Unfree category. Sound like unchecked capitalism to me...
When people start to feel squeezed, overly oppressed by taxation or other means, they will start to retaliate. THAT's why people will move money overseas, and that typically happens in countries that are NOT free economically.
gnostic
The Lost One
I don't think any political model is "perfect", whether it be capitalism, socialism, communism, republic, monarchy, aristocratic, oligarchic, caliphate, sultanate, plutocratic, theocracy, etc.
Each have their pros and cons, and some systems work better than others, but like I have said, nothing is perfect or flawless.
More often then not, those in the politics and business, have the greatest potential for corruption, where they will exploit the system for their own gains.
I find it mildly amusing that you would defend capitalism against the science of climate change.
And furthermore, climate change isn't a religion.
That you would even consider climate change to be religion and socialism, just showed that you are desperate enough to use flawed reasoning.
Each have their pros and cons, and some systems work better than others, but like I have said, nothing is perfect or flawless.
More often then not, those in the politics and business, have the greatest potential for corruption, where they will exploit the system for their own gains.
I find it mildly amusing that you would defend capitalism against the science of climate change.
- Capitalism isn't science.
- And climate change isn't politics or economics.
That you would even consider climate change to be religion and socialism, just showed that you are desperate enough to use flawed reasoning.
Debateable
Member
Here's something else I wanted to post about "global warming"
The Arctic ice melt is caused by one of the regular climate cycles; in this case the 61-year Yoshimura. The Arctic was just as warm as now, if not warmer back in the 1930's; http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90N MonthlyAnomaly Since1920.gif
The Arctic ice melt is caused by one of the regular climate cycles; in this case the 61-year Yoshimura. The Arctic was just as warm as now, if not warmer back in the 1930's; http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90N MonthlyAnomaly Since1920.gif