Climate protesters block roads
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
Gadgetmac said:
Anybody thinking that the majority of scientists in the 70's were predicting global cooling or an ice age was just listening to reports in the media based upon a few rogue scientists papers, not the majority of scientists findings.
Try again.
The McFarlane review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period showed that global cooling papers greatly outnumbered global warming papers by more than 5:1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% papers supporting cooling compared with 15% for warming. As today, science doesn't operate via consensus but this is to show that claims about scientists <not> favouring cooling back in the 1970s are false.
Try again.
Eichenlaub 1970
Hughes 1970
Fletcher 1970
Wahl and Lawson 1970
Hare 1971
Barrett (1971)
Holdren and Ehrlich 1971
Bray 1971
Rasool and Schneider 1971
Schell 1971
Watt 1971
Kukla1972
Wright 1972
Fairbridge 1972
Andrews et al 1972
Ložek 1972
Kukla and Kukla 1972
Sancetta et al 1972
Absolon 1972
Lentfer 1972
Mörner 1972
Matthews 1972
Hays and Perruzza 1972
Hamilton and Seliga 1972
Bodhaine and Pueshel 1973
Palmer 1973
Bradley 1973
Ellsaesser 1974
Cimorelli and House 1974
Flohn 1974
Bradley and Miller 1972
Sanchez and Kutzbach 1974
Newell 1974
Willett 1974
Weare and Snell 1974
Chýlek and Coakley 1974
Gribbin 1975
Bryson and Wendland 1975
Collis 1975
Potter et al 1975
King and Willis 1975
Wahl and Bryson 1975
Harshvandahn and Cess 1975
Williamson 1975
Lamb 1975
Ghil 1976
Allen et al 1976
Hays et al 1976
Dunbar 1976
Bryson and Dittberner 1976
Mason 1976
Shaw 1976
Denton and Karlén 1977
Bryson and Ross 1977
Kukla et al 1977
Wendland 1977
Ratcliffe 1977
Twomey 1977
Bryson and Dittberner 1977
Robock 1978
Ya-feng et al 1978
Shultz and Hillerud 1978
Williams 1978
Angell and Korshover 1978
Petersen and Larsen 1978
Lamb and Mörth 1978
Hustich 1978
Geist 1978
Barrett 1978
Brinkmann 1979
IIRC there was another Rasool and Schneider cooling paper in 1972.
The 1970’s myth for dummies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F6bq0l18Ng&fe...
As for your list, well just about every single list you’ve ever produced has, on investigation by others, turned out to be total junk.
That one will be too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F6bq0l18Ng&fe...
As for your list, well just about every single list you’ve ever produced has, on investigation by others, turned out to be total junk.
That one will be too.
New Scientist...”a handful of scientists”...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-clima...
Update from that article:
Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-clima...
You need to stop trawling WUWT and other disreputable sources for your cut ‘n pastes.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-clima...
Update from that article:
Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-clima...
You need to stop trawling WUWT and other disreputable sources for your cut ‘n pastes.
Gadgetmac said:
As for your list, well just about every single list you’ve ever produced has, on investigation by others, turned out to be total junk.
That one will be too.
Is that it?! That one will be too.
Thanks. Capitulation never looked as transparent as that ^.
Have some more fun, try the final paragraph (below) and compare the silliness back then with the mirror image silliness today. Click to enlarge.
More misdirection?
One of the undying, zombie-like arguments against climate change is that you can’t trust climate scientists because they started out making doom and gloom claims about global cooling in the 1970s. But this, along with many other things comedian Dennis Miller has said on late night talk shows, needn’t be taken seriously.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-m...
One of the undying, zombie-like arguments against climate change is that you can’t trust climate scientists because they started out making doom and gloom claims about global cooling in the 1970s. But this, along with many other things comedian Dennis Miller has said on late night talk shows, needn’t be taken seriously.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-m...
While waiting for climate protesters to block some more roads, but hoping it won't happen, here's some more grey lit for review.
“Certainly the threat of another ice age was the topic of much scientific and popular discussion in the 1970s. Books and articles entitled ‘The Cooling,’ ‘Blizzard,’ ‘Ice,’ and ‘A Mini Ice Age Could Begin in a Decade,’ abounded. The ‘snow blitz’ theory was popularized on the public television presentation of ‘The Weather Machine’ in 1975. And certainly the winters of the late 1970s were enough to send shivers through our imaginations.
- Harold Bernard, Jr., The Greenhouse Effect (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing, 1980), p. 20.
"The worriers about cooling included Science, the most influential scientific journal in the world, quoting an official of the World Meteorological Organization; the National Academy of Sciences worrying about the onset of a 10,000 year ice age; Newsweek warning that food production could be adversely affected within a decade; the New York Times quoting an official of the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Science Digest, the science periodical with the largest circulation.”
- Julian Simon, “What Does the Future Hold? The Forecast in a Nutshell,” in Simon, ed., The State of Humanity (Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1995), p. 646.
“In the early 1970s, the northern hemisphere appeared to have been cooling at an alarming rate. There was frequent talk of a new ice age. Books and documentaries appeared, hypothesizing a snowblitz or sporting titles such as The Cooling. Even the CIA got into the act, sponsoring several meetings and writing a controversial report warning of threats to American security from the potential collapse of Third World Governments in the wake of climate change.”
- Stephen Schneider (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1989), p. 199.
“Some climatologists believe that the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere, at least, may decline by two or three degrees by the end of the century. If that climate change occurs, there will be megadeaths and social upheaval because grain production in high latitudes (Canada, northern regions of China and the Soviet Union) will decrease.”
- George Will, “A Change in the Weather,” Washington Post, January 24, 1975, quoted in James Fleming, Historical Perspectives on Climate Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 132-33.
“Our climate has swung wildly from severe warming during the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s to severe cooling during the 1960s. . . . The cooling is a fact.”
- Lowell Ponte, The Cooling: Has The Next Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive It (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976), p. 31.
“Earth’s climate has been cooling. This fact seems to contradict theories that say it should be warming. But the prophets of warming are describing real forces that influence climate, and like other scientists they are still learning how these forces interact to produce a balance of heating and cooling on our planet. It may well turn out that the growing instability of Earth’s climate is caused by human influences adding both heating and cooling forces to the balance, thereby making it more and more ‘unnatural’ and precarious. The prophets of both warming and cooling agree on at least one thing: climatic changes can come quickly, within centuries or even decades, and can have devastating consequences for humankind. Climatology has ceased to be a drab science. Its findings have taken on an urgent importance for all of us.”
- Lowell Ponte, The Cooling: Has The Next Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive It (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976), p. 31.
“The continued rapid cooling of the earth since World War II is also in accord with the increased global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization, and an exploding population, added to a renewal of volcanic activity.”
- Reid Bryson, “‘All Other Factors Being Constant . . .’ A Reconciliation of Several Theories of Climate Change,” in John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, eds., Global Ecology: Readings Towards a Rational Strategy for Man (New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, 1971), p. 84.
“The generally cold period worldwide during the 1960s and early 1970s caused speculation that the world was heading for an ice age. A British television programme about climate change called ‘The ice age cometh’ was prepared early in the early 1970s and widely screened—but the cold trend soon came to an end. We must not be misled by our relatively short memories.”
- John Houghton, Global Warming: The Complete Briefing (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 7.
“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.
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.”
- Peter Gwynne, “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975, p. 64.
“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. . . . The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
- Peter Gwynne, “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975, p. 64.
“Several schools of thought in climate science interpret existing data in different ways. One argues that, instead of growing warmer, the Earth may enter an Ice Age as a result of man-made fuels combustion. The combustion of fossil fuels releases large quantities of particulate matter into the atmosphere, which may reflect sunlight away from the Earth, thus cooling the planet.”
- Wilson Clark, Energy for Survival: The Alternative to Extinction (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1974), p. 117.
“Certainly the threat of another ice age was the topic of much scientific and popular discussion in the 1970s. Books and articles entitled ‘The Cooling,’ ‘Blizzard,’ ‘Ice,’ and ‘A Mini Ice Age Could Begin in a Decade,’ abounded. The ‘snow blitz’ theory was popularized on the public television presentation of ‘The Weather Machine’ in 1975. And certainly the winters of the late 1970s were enough to send shivers through our imaginations.
- Harold Bernard, Jr., The Greenhouse Effect (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing, 1980), p. 20.
"The worriers about cooling included Science, the most influential scientific journal in the world, quoting an official of the World Meteorological Organization; the National Academy of Sciences worrying about the onset of a 10,000 year ice age; Newsweek warning that food production could be adversely affected within a decade; the New York Times quoting an official of the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Science Digest, the science periodical with the largest circulation.”
- Julian Simon, “What Does the Future Hold? The Forecast in a Nutshell,” in Simon, ed., The State of Humanity (Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1995), p. 646.
“In the early 1970s, the northern hemisphere appeared to have been cooling at an alarming rate. There was frequent talk of a new ice age. Books and documentaries appeared, hypothesizing a snowblitz or sporting titles such as The Cooling. Even the CIA got into the act, sponsoring several meetings and writing a controversial report warning of threats to American security from the potential collapse of Third World Governments in the wake of climate change.”
- Stephen Schneider (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1989), p. 199.
“Some climatologists believe that the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere, at least, may decline by two or three degrees by the end of the century. If that climate change occurs, there will be megadeaths and social upheaval because grain production in high latitudes (Canada, northern regions of China and the Soviet Union) will decrease.”
- George Will, “A Change in the Weather,” Washington Post, January 24, 1975, quoted in James Fleming, Historical Perspectives on Climate Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 132-33.
“Our climate has swung wildly from severe warming during the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s to severe cooling during the 1960s. . . . The cooling is a fact.”
- Lowell Ponte, The Cooling: Has The Next Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive It (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976), p. 31.
“Earth’s climate has been cooling. This fact seems to contradict theories that say it should be warming. But the prophets of warming are describing real forces that influence climate, and like other scientists they are still learning how these forces interact to produce a balance of heating and cooling on our planet. It may well turn out that the growing instability of Earth’s climate is caused by human influences adding both heating and cooling forces to the balance, thereby making it more and more ‘unnatural’ and precarious. The prophets of both warming and cooling agree on at least one thing: climatic changes can come quickly, within centuries or even decades, and can have devastating consequences for humankind. Climatology has ceased to be a drab science. Its findings have taken on an urgent importance for all of us.”
- Lowell Ponte, The Cooling: Has The Next Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive It (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976), p. 31.
“The continued rapid cooling of the earth since World War II is also in accord with the increased global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization, and an exploding population, added to a renewal of volcanic activity.”
- Reid Bryson, “‘All Other Factors Being Constant . . .’ A Reconciliation of Several Theories of Climate Change,” in John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, eds., Global Ecology: Readings Towards a Rational Strategy for Man (New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, 1971), p. 84.
“The generally cold period worldwide during the 1960s and early 1970s caused speculation that the world was heading for an ice age. A British television programme about climate change called ‘The ice age cometh’ was prepared early in the early 1970s and widely screened—but the cold trend soon came to an end. We must not be misled by our relatively short memories.”
- John Houghton, Global Warming: The Complete Briefing (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 7.
“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.
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.”
- Peter Gwynne, “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975, p. 64.
“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. . . . The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
- Peter Gwynne, “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975, p. 64.
“Several schools of thought in climate science interpret existing data in different ways. One argues that, instead of growing warmer, the Earth may enter an Ice Age as a result of man-made fuels combustion. The combustion of fossil fuels releases large quantities of particulate matter into the atmosphere, which may reflect sunlight away from the Earth, thus cooling the planet.”
- Wilson Clark, Energy for Survival: The Alternative to Extinction (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1974), p. 117.
An Energy blog...
I’ll cut and paste from a cleaner source:
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970’s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970’s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970’s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970’s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”. The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:
Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.
One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).
The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call “imminent” (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.
Will also quotes “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn’t. The piece isn’t from “Science”; it’s from “Science News”. There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigous journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.
The Hays paper above is the most notable example of the “ice age” strand. Indeed, its a very important paper in the history of climate, linking observed cycles in ocean sediment cores to orbital forcing periodicities. Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem). There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.
Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn’t know enough to make predictions. From the “Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations”, we find that they said we should:
Establish National climatic research program
Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
Develope Climatic index monitoring program
Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
Adoption and development of International climatic research program
Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network
Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.
Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:
The cooling trend from the 40’s to the 70’s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.
Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.
I’ll cut and paste from a cleaner source:
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970’s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970’s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970’s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970’s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”. The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:
Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.
One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).
The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call “imminent” (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.
Will also quotes “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn’t. The piece isn’t from “Science”; it’s from “Science News”. There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigous journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.
The Hays paper above is the most notable example of the “ice age” strand. Indeed, its a very important paper in the history of climate, linking observed cycles in ocean sediment cores to orbital forcing periodicities. Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem). There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.
Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn’t know enough to make predictions. From the “Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations”, we find that they said we should:
Establish National climatic research program
Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
Develope Climatic index monitoring program
Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
Adoption and development of International climatic research program
Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network
Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.
Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:
The cooling trend from the 40’s to the 70’s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.
Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.
XR continue to look at the consequences of human-attributable issues, and finding quick solutions to those issues, rather than addressing the primary causal factor. Human attributable climate change and pollution, in all its forms, is directly proportional to the number of humans.
If they don't make population reduction central to their policies then they can never hope to resolve anything. But then XR's motivation really isn't about climate change, is it?
If they don't make population reduction central to their policies then they can never hope to resolve anything. But then XR's motivation really isn't about climate change, is it?
Mort7 said:
XR continue to look at the consequences of human-attributable issues, and finding quick solutions to those issues, rather than addressing the primary causal factor. Human attributable climate change and pollution, in all its forms, is directly proportional to the number of humans.
If they don't make population reduction central to their policies then they can never hope to resolve anything. But then XR's motivation really isn't about climate change, is it?
I was of the understanding that if we adopted their policies wholeheartedly then millions of people will inevitably die of starvation, disease, and boredom, so you could argue that it was a central tenet of their policies, but not articulated thus.If they don't make population reduction central to their policies then they can never hope to resolve anything. But then XR's motivation really isn't about climate change, is it?
Incidentally, I was listening to a spokesperson from one or other climate organisations on R4 a few days ago, who was talking about the record high levels of CO2 in the atmos. She said something along the lines of "the last time CO2 was at this level, the sea level was 20' higher".
Why isn't it now? (Genuine question BTW, from an interested ex-geologist who knows his isostatics from his eustatics.)
Yertis said:
I was of the understanding that if we adopted their policies wholeheartedly then millions of people will inevitably die of starvation, disease, and boredom, so you could argue that it was a central tenet of their policies, but not articulated thus.
Incidentally, I was listening to a spokesperson from one or other climate organisations on R4 a few days ago, who was talking about the record high levels of CO2 in the atmos. She said something along the lines of "the last time CO2 was at this level, the sea level was 20' higher".
Why isn't it now? (Genuine question BTW, from an interested ex-geologist who knows his isostatics from his eustatics.)
Easy, man-made CO2 has Superpowers and is completely different to 'common or garden' CO2...Incidentally, I was listening to a spokesperson from one or other climate organisations on R4 a few days ago, who was talking about the record high levels of CO2 in the atmos. She said something along the lines of "the last time CO2 was at this level, the sea level was 20' higher".
Why isn't it now? (Genuine question BTW, from an interested ex-geologist who knows his isostatics from his eustatics.)
Mort7 said:
XR continue to look at the consequences of human-attributable issues, and finding quick solutions to those issues, rather than addressing the primary causal factor. Human attributable climate change and pollution, in all its forms, is directly proportional to the number of humans.
If they don't make population reduction central to their policies then they can never hope to resolve anything. But then XR's motivation really isn't about climate change, is it?
This is often posted because many do not look at the statistics. Birth rates are falling and in many cases are already well below replacement levels. Rising population is due to people living longer. Particularly in the developed world where economic progress means better health and access to medicine.If they don't make population reduction central to their policies then they can never hope to resolve anything. But then XR's motivation really isn't about climate change, is it?
On that basis how would you suggest we reduce population?
Mrr T said:
Mort7 said:
XR continue to look at the consequences of human-attributable issues, and finding quick solutions to those issues, rather than addressing the primary causal factor. Human attributable climate change and pollution, in all its forms, is directly proportional to the number of humans.
If they don't make population reduction central to their policies then they can never hope to resolve anything. But then XR's motivation really isn't about climate change, is it?
This is often posted because many do not look at the statistics. Birth rates are falling and in many cases are already well below replacement levels. If they don't make population reduction central to their policies then they can never hope to resolve anything. But then XR's motivation really isn't about climate change, is it?
We have expensive/subsidised renewables but CO2 levels are still rising. Those who think it matters are clearly doing a good job.
Fancy all that.
Mrr T said:
Rising population is due to people living longer. Particularly in the developed world where economic progress means better health and access to medicine.
Soylent Green on the NHS?Mrr T said:
Mort7 said:
XR continue to look at the consequences of human-attributable issues, and finding quick solutions to those issues, rather than addressing the primary causal factor. Human attributable climate change and pollution, in all its forms, is directly proportional to the number of humans.
If they don't make population reduction central to their policies then they can never hope to resolve anything. But then XR's motivation really isn't about climate change, is it?
This is often posted because many do not look at the statistics. Birth rates are falling and in many cases are already well below replacement levels. Rising population is due to people living longer. Particularly in the developed world where economic progress means better health and access to medicine.If they don't make population reduction central to their policies then they can never hope to resolve anything. But then XR's motivation really isn't about climate change, is it?
On that basis how would you suggest we reduce population?
How would I do that? Well, in the UK we pay people to have children. I would like to see child benefits phased out (but not, under any circumstances, to be taken away from those currently receiving them), with a clear announcement of a timetable for this. I would actually like to see an allowance paid to those who are married or in Civil Partnership who do not have children. This seems a lot more logical as couples could use that money to prepare to have a child (preferably singular) in the knowledge that they would not be receiving any benefits and so would actually have to ensure that they could afford a child before having one, rather than relying on the rest of us to pay for its upkeep.
Any shortfall in our labour requirements would be supplemented by allowing immigration of suitably qualified individuals, of the right character, who agree to subscribe to our values, and pay their way in our society. This would give us a more diverse culture, and would help to alleviate global inequality - but on our terms.
I would also like to see all foreign aid linked to the provision of better health care and both the education regarding, and provision of, contraception. If the infant and adult mortality rates of the countries we are supporting can be improved, then there will be a lessened imperative to have children, and we will provide the contraception to facilitate that.
I would like to see a target global population of 2 billion, to be achieved as quickly as possible using sympathetic methods such as those detailed above, with the secondary aim of bringing living standards of the rest of the world up to Western levels. A lower population would allow us to give habitat back to species which we are currently wiping out. If we become more efficient in our use of the Earth's resources we might actually be able to live in harmony with it, rather than devouring it like maggots on a corpse.
You may say I'm a dreamer - but I'm not the only one....... etc, etc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff