Medieval Warm period due to NAO
Discussion
tinman0 said:
nigelfr] said:
Oh man that is soooo wrong.
Go look it up. First it was global cooling, now its global warming.Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Edited by tinman0 on Sunday 5th April 18:37
Er isn't that basically what Ludo said?
ETA I assume you read the link that you provided, so why do you then say this...
tinman0 said:
Who were the press listening to? DId they just make it up? Course there were scientists behind, and course there are studies supporting it and disputing it. Just like we have today with Global Warming, now renamed Climate Change to hedge the bets properly, because even the Global Warming people couldn't be sure, but to really f
k up the human race they needed that extra bet.
Regardless of who is wrong and who is right, my point was that in the 70s, the "world" was considering global cooling rather than global warming. This apparently is new to Nige.
It wasn't news to me: the "70's global cooling myth " is well known and well debunked. Just Google it and see.k up the human race they needed that extra bet.Regardless of who is wrong and who is right, my point was that in the 70s, the "world" was considering global cooling rather than global warming. This apparently is new to Nige.
Edited by nigelfr on Sunday 5th April 19:17
Tinman0, the imminent ice age theme of the 70s wasn't made up, those working in the field were well aware of the 'consensus' back then:
Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Abstract: Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Becuase of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg.K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
Aside: later a leading greenhouse advocate, Schneider was attributed with this remark in an interview with Discover magazine in OCtober 1989:
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."
This was aso quoted in Dixy Lee Ray's book 'Trashing the Planet' - Ray was a marine biologist, and Washigton's first female Governor.
The media did indeed pick up on the imminent-ice-age-consensus and it was covered widely in a populist manner, foreshdowing today's warming hysteria.
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
Dr Patrick Michaels who became Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia and a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute said:
When I was going to graduate school, it was gospel that the Ice Age was about to start. I had trouble warming up to that one too. This (current, greenhouse) is not the first climate apocalypse, but it's certainly the loudest
One of the eighties' most prominent warmists wrote an interesting paper back then:Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Abstract: Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Becuase of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg.K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
Aside: later a leading greenhouse advocate, Schneider was attributed with this remark in an interview with Discover magazine in OCtober 1989:
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."
This was aso quoted in Dixy Lee Ray's book 'Trashing the Planet' - Ray was a marine biologist, and Washigton's first female Governor.
The media did indeed pick up on the imminent-ice-age-consensus and it was covered widely in a populist manner, foreshdowing today's warming hysteria.
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
nigelfr said:
So I went to your link and I read the first paragraph and it says: "Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.
Course it says that. The current climate debate needs to discredit the previous misgivings so they edit Wiki. It had enough scientific support at the time for them to start investigating it by taking temperatures around the world, and building some very expensive satellites.
Also, this comment "slight downward trend from 1940s to early 1970s???? So, the climate scientists dismiss that, and then start banging on about the following 30 years and what must be a realignment from the 40-70s? "Yeah, the downward drop of 40s-70s was because of ice age cycles, but the increase since is man made global warming".
In any other argument, this is called having your cake and eating it.
turbobloke said:
Tinman0, the imminent ice age theme of the 70s wasn't made up, those working in the field were well aware of the 'consensus' back then:
Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Abstract: Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Becuase of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg.K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
This is just an example of what I said earlier, namelyDr Patrick Michaels who became Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia and a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute said:
When I was going to graduate school, it was gospel that the Ice Age was about to start. I had trouble warming up to that one too. This (current, greenhouse) is not the first climate apocalypse, but it's certainly the loudest
One of the eighties' most prominent warmists wrote an interesting paper back then:Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Abstract: Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Becuase of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg.K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
ludo said:
That was the press that got excited about it, not the scientists. As the time the scientists didn't know whether aerosol drive cooling or greenhouse gas based warming would win out, with the majority (but not concensus) going with warming.
In this case Scheider and Rasool got the answer wrong because they didn't know steps would be taken to reduce aerosols.However, it is nice to see you quoting a paper saying that increased CO2 leads to temperature increases (governed by the usual logarithmic relationship)
Schneider and Rasool said:
It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
just like in the models 
turbobloke said:
Aside: later a leading greenhouse advocate, Schneider was attributed with this remark in an interview with Discover magazine in OCtober 1989:
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."
This was aso quoted in Dixy Lee Ray's book 'Trashing the Planet' - Ray was a marine biologist, and Washigton's first female Governor.
The media did indeed pick up on the imminent-ice-age-consensus and it was covered widely in a populist manner, foreshdowing today's warming hysteria.
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
As I said, the media misrepresented the mainstream scientific position on this one, by reporting that something that was suggested was possible as being likely. Note that Schneider and Rasool said:"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."
This was aso quoted in Dixy Lee Ray's book 'Trashing the Planet' - Ray was a marine biologist, and Washigton's first female Governor.
The media did indeed pick up on the imminent-ice-age-consensus and it was covered widely in a populist manner, foreshdowing today's warming hysteria.
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
Schnieder and Rasool said:
IF sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
Note is is a conditional statement, not an assertion that something is even likely, just that it is possible under certain circumstances.Edited by ludo on Sunday 5th April 20:33
turbobloke said:
Climatologists of the day (Michaels) and scientists of the day, remember it first-hand. Ask some who are unbiased 
Like Pat Michaels? 
Here is a published study, rather better than anecdotal evidence, giving references showing only minority support for the ice age theory.
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/p...
If you can give references that demonstrate that they are wrong (i.e. another review of the litterature) rather than an ad-hominem, go ahead.
turbobloke said:
At the time I was an undergraduate scientist then a gtraduate research scientist. I remember it very well, and would agree with Michaels, the phenomenon was transatlantic.
O.K., so you will have no problem citing a large number of papers that support the ice age theory rather than just the one?Edited by ludo on Sunday 5th April 20:45
At the time of the first Earth Day in 1970 Kenneth Watt of UC Davis is quoted as follows: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." For environ mentalists of the day to make something of this, be it Schneider or Watt or others, meant that such groups thught it worthy of investing their personal time and energy. As it happens by the time the media began to cover the ice age theme, environ mentalists hadn't sussed how to organise and become politically effective particularly over influencing systematic political action, as a result the grants and grace and favour was absent and like today, there was a media consensus as accurately described (and illustrated with checkable article sources and dates) but no genuine scientific consensus. Then in the 80s solar activity picked up (irradiance and eruptivity) and modest natural warming re-started; in the now-current theme of non-existent manmade global warming there was also political capital in maintaining a propagandised public so the impact has been greater in both journalistic and scientific circles.
turbobloke said:
Posts are disappearing, very strange. Ludo's quote is correct, for the record.
I did indeed say that, in reply to your statement:ludo said:
Like Pat Michaels?
turbobloke said:
Climatologists of the day (Michaels) and scientists of the day, remember it first-hand. Ask some who are unbiased
It wasn't an ad-hominem, I was just amused at the implication that Michaels was unbiased. He has written several books on the sceptic argument and thus has a personal financial benefit from one side of the argument. Apparently he has also been a consultant for the fossil fuel industry and edits the World Climate Report (published and funded by the Greening Earth Society created by the Western Fuels Association) (according to Wikipedia so caveat lector). That doesn't make his arguments incorrect a-priori, it just means that he is not unbiased, and so your comment was pretty funny!ludo said:
It wasn't an ad-hominem
OK, no reason to doubt you, but I'm sure you can see how it looked.As to bias, hmmm! Effthedata.org are hardly an unbiased source either, while we're on the theme. What about Michael Mann (hockey stick) and Gavin Schmidt (climate modeller) as staffers of that site in terms of your comment on Michaels? It's the same for both sides. I suspect even you can see that.
This is why we should rely on the data, at which point MMGWT is in trouble.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 5th April 21:14
turbobloke said:
At the time of the first Earth Day in 1970 Kenneth Watt of UC Davis is quoted as follows: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
You do know what the word "if" means don't you?turbobloke said:
For environ mentalists of the day to make something of this, be it Schneider or Watt or others, meant that such groups thught it worthy of investing their personal time and energy.
As I said the scientists of the time didn't know whether aerosol cooling or CO2 based warming would win out, so this is just a straw man, nobody was saying that no scientists thought an ice age was possible, just that it was a minority view that the media latched onto.ludo said:
turbobloke said:
At the time of the first Earth Day in 1970 Kenneth Watt of UC Davis is quoted as follows: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
You do know what the word "if" means don't you?Yes, also the meaning of 'could' and 'might', since I've read IPCC Reports on their "storylines" on a regular basis.
Changes nothing.
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
It wasn't an ad-hominem
OK, no reason to doubt you, but I'm sure you can see how it looked.turbobloke said:
As to bias, hmmm! Effthedata.org are hardly an unbiased source either, while we're on the theme. What about Michael Mann (hockey stick) and Gavin Schmidt (climate modeller) as staffers of that site in terms of your comment on Michaels? It's the same for both sides. I suspect even you can see that.
yes, funny that you are quick to say that those in the AGW camp are biased so soon after implying that Pat Michaels of all people were unbiased. Just how much money do you think he makes out of his books?The point is that it is the argument that matters, not the source. I have no problem with you using arguments from Michaels, just as you should have no problem in me using arguments from RealClimate. I consider Michaels to be wrong on this issue as there has been a study of the scientific litterature of the time (which I posted) that shows him to be mistaken. Until another such study refutes the first, I don't see a reason to change my mind.
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
At the time of the first Earth Day in 1970 Kenneth Watt of UC Davis is quoted as follows: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
You do know what the word "if" means don't you?Yes, also the meaning of 'could' and 'might', since I've read IPCC Reports on their "storylines" on a regular basis.
Changes nothing.
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
At the time of the first Earth Day in 1970 Kenneth Watt of UC Davis is quoted as follows: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
You do know what the word "if" means don't you?Yes, also the meaning of 'could' and 'might', since I've read IPCC Reports on their "storylines" on a regular basis.
Changes nothing.
We're all going to die!!!
We "might" get hit by an asteroid next week
We're all going to die!!!!
mondeoman said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
At the time of the first Earth Day in 1970 Kenneth Watt of UC Davis is quoted as follows: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
You do know what the word "if" means don't you?Yes, also the meaning of 'could' and 'might', since I've read IPCC Reports on their "storylines" on a regular basis.
Changes nothing.
We're all going to die!!!
We "might" get hit by an asteroid next week
We're all going to die!!!!
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
The IPCC don't have a triple A rating. When a view is orchestrated, you need the right view to get in the orchestra. Expaining it makes it no better.
ludo said:
The point is that it is the argument that matters, not the source.
More importantly, the data matters most, not opinion.
Which is where MMGWT is (still) in trouble.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff