Climate Change - Looking Back

[Keepitsimple]

Many people have heard about how scientists were predicting a long cooling period back in 1975 - but it's interesting to read the original article from NewsWeek, 1975. It's interesting because at the time, there wasn't the political polarization that infects the "debate" today. It's interesting because the cooling period between the 40's and 70's mostly disappears in today's IPCC-authorhed graphs and "adjusted", homogenized temperatures - so it's nice to see it referred to in such a matter-of-fact way. It's interesting to see a calm, unbiased article demonstrate that althgough humans can affect climate change through land-use and yes, some fraction via CO2 - Mother Nature's natural variability always overwhelms that effect. And so it really does seem to apply: those who do not learn from history - are bound to repeat it.

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Link: http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Edited November 24, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

How many times do we have to point out that Newsweek is Mott a scientific journal? It feels like we have pointed this out a dozen times,

What Newsweek published to sell magazines in the 70s isn't indicative of the science. Even at the time, this was a minority view.

[Guest Manny]

What Newsweek published to sell magazines in the 70s isn't indicative of the science. Even at the time, this was a minority view.

And we should go with what the majority thinks, because the majority is always right...

Baaa, Baaa

[Michael Hardner]

And we should go with what the majority thinks, because the majority is always right...

Baaa, Baaa

The flip side of your comment is that if one crackpot scientist has a dissenting view then the science should just stop until that scientist changes their views. That makes no sense. And in terms of majority, we're talking about an overwhelming consensus.

For the ice age idea, there were only a handful of scientists who published on that topic. Even at the time there were more scientists who believed in warming. The lesson is: don't believe the MSM, go to the source.

[TimG]

The lesson is: don't believe the MSM, go to the source.

But what do you do if the source refuses to make their data publically accessible?

[Michael Hardner]

But what do you do if the source refuses to make their data publically accessible?

I guess it would depend on the example.

[Wild Bill]

How many times do we have to point out that Newsweek is Mott a scientific journal? It feels like we have pointed this out a dozen times,

What Newsweek published to sell magazines in the 70s isn't indicative of the science. Even at the time, this was a minority view.

How do you know this was a minority view, Michael? You keep saying that, which directly contradicts my own personal experience having grown up in those times, yet you've never given me anything to prove it!

Newsweek may have been a layman's magazine but the article cites sources like the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Columbia University, University of Wisconsin - Michael, these are reputable scientific sources, not quotes from the National Inquirer!

I would think that these sources support my own experience of the mood of those times. You blew me off for citing Omni magazine, despite the original sources. Now you're blowing off Newsweek and there by extension those reputable sources contained within the article!

Or am I mistaken and the sources referenced in Newsweek well-known popular hacks? Is the National Academy of Sciences really a front for the Advancement of Astrology?

[Michael Hardner]

How do you know this was a minority view, Michael? You keep saying that, which directly contradicts my own personal experience having grown up in those times, yet you've never given me anything to prove it!

I have *never* given you anything to prove it ? As I recall we had an extended conversation on the topic, which never ended. As I recall you submitted that articles appeared in OMNI, and I pointed out that such magazines aren't considered scientific journals. OMNI in particular was a pop sci-fi magazine published by Penthouse publications.

Newsweek may have been a layman's magazine but the article cites sources like the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Columbia University, University of Wisconsin - Michael, these are reputable scientific sources, not quotes from the National Inquirer!

And if you read the quotes none of them refer to any study that proposes that an ice age is imminent. The quotes are selective, and don't address the question. I Googled one of the scientists mentioned and found that his obituary

I would think that these sources support my own experience of the mood of those times. You blew me off for citing Omni magazine, despite the original sources. Now you're blowing off Newsweek and there by extension those reputable sources contained within the article!

Or am I mistaken and the sources referenced in Newsweek well-known popular hacks? Is the National Academy of Sciences really a front for the Advancement of Astrology?

states that he warned for years about global warming so the quote from him seems to refer to data that didn't see as significant in the big picture.

Be very careful when trying to read science from MSM that is geared towards controversy and getting readership. Look for a cite to an actual study, and the conclusions of that study. This article fails on those counts.

[Michael Hardner]

A published paper studied the literature on the Global Cooling theory in the 1970s...

Peterson 2008

Summarized here

10% (I counted 7 papers) of scientists predicted cooling while 62% predicted warming.

[Michael Hardner]

How do you know this was a minority view, Michael? You keep saying that, which directly contradicts my own personal experience having grown up in those times, yet you've never given me anything to prove it!

By minority view, I'm talking about a minority of climate scientists. It was a fringe idea, as are UFOs crystal power and the like.

This was the last post on the discussion, but I realize now that the subject had turned to the 'popular' mood of the times. If that's what we're talking about, then I should concur with you that the ice age was more in the popular imagination but... who cares ?

I'm not arguing that global warming is a valid theory because it's popular with the public today either, and I don't see anybody else on here doing that.

[jbg]

My view is that both the cooling that ended during the 1970's (rather dramatically peaking in the form of three frigid, snowy winters in a row, 1976-7, 1977-8 and 1978-9) with a final blowoff April 7, 1982 blizzard, and the warming that set in thereafter (and probably ended somewhere between 1997 and 2007 though the exact year is hotly disputed) are cyclical events.

But remember, I am a historian, not a scientist.

[TimG]

By minority view, I'm talking about a minority of climate scientists. It was a fringe idea, as are UFOs crystal power and the like.

Pure revisionist history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

The first director of the unit was Professor Hubert Lamb.[6] He had led research into climatic variation at the Met Office and was chair of the UN's World Meteorological Organisation, which already studied climate trends and the effect of pollution upon them.[6] He was then known as the "ice man" for his prediction of global cooling and a coming ice age but, following the UK's exceptionally hot summer of 1976, he switched to predicting a more imminent global warming.[6]

The director of CRU was NOT some fringe scientist. People may have disagreed with him but attempting to characterize the belief in a coming ice age as fringe is dishonest.

This is yet one more example where your blind acceptance of whatever your favorite alarmists says is leading you astray. I don't mean to say that sceptics are always right but you need to be sceptical no matter where the information comes from.

Edited November 25, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Pure revisionist history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

The director of CRU was NOT some fringe scientist. People may have disagreed with him but attempting to characterize the belief in a coming ice age as fringe is dishonest.

This is yet one more example where your blind acceptance of whatever your favorite alarmists says is leading you astray. I don't mean to say that sceptics are always right but you need to be sceptical no matter where the information comes from.

Interesting. Lamb apparently didn't publish anything, and given that he changed his opinion so quickly we should find out more about what his positions were.

I'm skeptical of information, but you have to set the bar the same for both sides. Do you think that the Newsweek article is enough evidence that this theory was important to the science in the 1970s ?

[wyly]

Interesting. Lamb apparently didn't publish anything, and given that he changed his opinion so quickly we should find out more about what his positions were.

I'm skeptical of information, but you have to set the bar the same for both sides. Do you think that the Newsweek article is enough evidence that this theory was important to the science in the 1970s ?

the cooling/ice age myth is lodged in the public mind because the common fear/dislike of "cold" brrrr, few of us fear/loath warmth; cold=bad, warm=good...so the myth of ice age predictions made the headlines decades ago because it addressed an immediate fear, few canadians were scientifically savvy enough back then to understand and appreciate the danger of a warmer planet so there was no media hysteria of ecological catastrophe due to warming....frightening projections of impending "ice age" stuck, projections of a warming planet weren't frightening or newsworthy... Edited November 25, 2011 by wyly

[Bonam]

the cooling/ice age myth is lodged in the public mind because the common fear/dislike of "cold" brrrr, few of us fear/loath warmth; cold=bad, warm=good..

I disagree. Warmth sucks. Nothing worse than a rainy day on the ski resort when it should be snowing instead.

[TimG]

I'm skeptical of information, but you have to set the bar the same for both sides. Do you think that the Newsweek article is enough evidence that this theory was important to the science in the 1970s?

It is on wikipedia with a link to the source. Is that not enough?

In any case, my point is the theory had considerabily more credibility than UFOs or crystal power. It may have been disputed but it was real.

[Keepitsimple]

My point in posting the article was not whether we had Global Cooling or Global Warming. It was that back then, it was still OK to have differing opinions.....OK to clearly state that there WAS significant cooling from the 40's to the 70's - in spite of rising CO2. The level of scientific discourse was still one of unsubsidized research - unpoliticized research - and the give and take of scientific synthesis, analysis, proving and disproving. Oh for a return to those days.

[Michael Hardner]

It is on wikipedia with a link to the source. Is that not enough?

In any case, my point is the theory had considerabily more credibility than UFOs or crystal power. It may have been disputed but it was real.

It is enough, but the link didn't work for me. Waldo provided a compelling response on the other thread, but I didn't see a link there either. I'll check again.

Yes, after having read the conclusions of Peterson's study I concur that it had more credibility than UFOs or crystal power, I'll stop using that analogy now.

[Michael Hardner]

My point in posting the article was not whether we had Global Cooling or Global Warming. It was that back then, it was still OK to have differing opinions....

We can go back there. If you are truly sick of the fake "left-right politics industry" - and the giant proxy organizations that maintain a constant political fight because it benefits them to do so - then you can do your part by continuing to contribute towards having reasoned and solutions-focused debate on this board. It may not lead anywhere, but at least we will be living without sin.

[lukin]

Everyone needs to read the actual emails. There are some interesting nuggets here. read carefully and try to understand the implications.

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4195.txt

Sorry waldo, even you won't be able to spin these with your numerous, boring block quotes.

Edited December 1, 2011 by lukin

[Michael Hardner]

I agree that reading the emails in full is better.

[waldo]

I agree that reading the emails in full is better.

What! You want context? Buddy lukin is aghast he can't get any mileage over this... days back he blasted out of the gate with his own thread on the SonOfHackergate2.0... too excited to realize there already was one started. Both threads have seemed to wash out... so, buddy lukin is trying again... having another go at it.

[lukin]

What! You want context? Buddy lukin is aghast he can't get any mileage over this... days back he blasted out of the gate with his own thread on the SonOfHackergate2.0... too excited to realize there already was one started. Both threads have seemed to wash out... so, buddy lukin is trying again... having another go at it.

You're wrong again walnut.

[lukin]

Anyone with common sense realizes that there is no legitimate evidence humans are causing globaloney warming/climate change. It's all about a transfer of wealth..it's that simple.

Edited December 2, 2011 by lukin

[waldo]

Anyone with common sense realizes that there is no legitimate evidence humans are causing globaloney warming/climate change. It's all about a transfer of wealth..it's that simple.

take a shot... see if you can even structure a sentence to actually describe what, to you, would constitute, as you say, "legitimate evidence".