Global Cooling

[RickG]

Were climate scientists predicting an ice age in the 1970s?

 

[Blayz]

No.

 

[RickG]

No.

But there was talk about it.

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Time-Ice-Age-06-24-1974-Sm.jpg

 

[Cromulent]

But there was talk about it.

There was talk about lots of things. Concensus, which is what we have now, is something completely different altogether.

 

[RickG]

There was talk about lots of things. Concensus, which is what we have now, is something completely different altogether.

Whoa! Let's not move out of the 1970s just yet.

 

[RickG]

Well, so far I'm not getting many bites. The point I'm trying to make is that when deciding what is correct about climate science and what is not correct about climate science is largely dependent upon one's sources.

One of the myths the climate change skeptics like to trot out is the idea that climate scientists were predicting an ice age in the 1970's. The claim is false. An actual search of the scientific literature of the period shows that the majority of climate scientists were concerned about global warming due to rising greenhouse gases (Peterson 2008).

What is really eye opening is a report by the National Research Council's Climate Research Board (Charney et al 1979) which states:

"A warming from doubling of CO2 of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C is possible. While there are uncertainties, there is enough evidence to support action. A wait and see policy may mean waiting until it is too late".

 

[Loudmouth]

Were climate scientists predicting an ice age in the 1970s?

A minority of scientists were predicting cooling due to aerosols from dirty fuels like diesel and coal factories. They claimed that the cooling effect from these aerosols would overcome the warming trend caused by the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Like now, the "coolers" were in the minority. There has been a steady consensus for warming over the last 40 years.

 

[Cromulent]

A minority of scientists were predicting cooling due to aerosols from dirty fuels like diesel and coal factories. They claimed that the cooling effect from these aerosols would overcome the warming trend caused by the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Like now, the "coolers" were in the minority. There has been a steady consensus for warming over the last 40 years.

And 40 years ago, any climate scientist worthy of the name would have freely admitted that we couldn't be sure which factors would dominate the human effect on climate. Now, with modern climate models, and several decades more data, that doubt has been all but eliminated in the minds of all but a tiny minority of people who know anything at all about the subject.

 

[RickG]

A minority of scientists were predicting cooling due to aerosols from dirty fuels like diesel and coal factories. They claimed that the cooling effect from these aerosols would overcome the warming trend caused by the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Like now, the "coolers" were in the minority. There has been a steady consensus for warming over the last 40 years.

Actually there was one very credible cooling paper (Rasool & Schneider 1971) that predicted a possible ice age based on an increase of sulfate aerosols 4 times the then current level. It was actually sulfate aerosols that was causing the cooling trend between 1940 and 1970. What turned that around was legislation that regulated sulfate emissions in the 1970s, revealing the hidden warming we now see.

 

[Cabal]

Were climate scientists predicting an ice age in the 1970s?

No.

Next!

 

[mzungu]

Well, so far I'm not getting many bites. The point I'm trying to make is that when deciding what is correct about climate science and what is not correct about climate science is largely dependent upon one's sources.

One of the myths the climate change skeptics like to trot out is the idea that climate scientists were predicting an ice age in the 1970's. The claim is false. An actual search of the scientific literature of the period shows that the majority of climate scientists were concerned about global warming due to rising greenhouse gases (Peterson 2008).

What is really eye opening is a report by the National Research Council's Climate Research Board (Charney et al 1979) which states:

"A warming from doubling of CO2 of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C is possible. While there are uncertainties, there is enough evidence to support action. A wait and see policy may mean waiting until it is too late".

Climate science depends on a large part on computer technology (number crunching). The 70s compared to today were light years behind.

Science needs the technological tools in order to advance and make more accurate predictions.

Erudition is truly an arduous path to take but well worth it!

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually there was one very credible cooling paper (Rasool & Schneider 1971) that predicted a possible ice age based on an increase of sulfate aerosols 4 times the then current level. It was actually sulfate aerosols that was causing the cooling trend between 1940 and 1970. What turned that around was legislation that regulated sulfate emissions in the 1970s, revealing the hidden warming we now see.

Kind of ironic, isn't it? We require cleaner fuels (low sulfur diesel and coal) in the name of protecting the environment and it results in more warming which could potentially result in environmental damage.

 

[Jazer]

Climate science depends on a large part on computer technology (number crunching). The 70s compared to today were light years behind.

Back in the 70's we were still punching holes into a card to feed data into the computer. But I will put the car I had in 1970 up against any car they make today.

 

[AV1611VET]

Back in the 70's we were still punching holes into a card to feed data into the computer.

Ah, yes -- the old Hollerith code.

I had to learn it.

 

[Jazer]

Kind of ironic, isn't it? We require cleaner fuels (low sulfur diesel and coal) in the name of protecting the environment and it results in more warming which could potentially result in environmental damage.

How does warming damage the environment? There is perhaps some damage to the Coral but the King Crabs are growing like gang busters. The real damage is from the chemical run off from the farms and lawns. That is what creates the dead zones in the oceans and great lakes.

 

[Jazer]

Ah, yes -- the old Hollerith code.

I had to learn it.

I took a survey course that had a lot of trigonometry and we had to run the math into the computer. But soon after that Texas Instrament came out with calculators that would do the math.

 

[Cromulent]

Back in the 70's we were still punching holes into a card to feed data into the computer. But I will put the car I had in 1970 up against any car they make today.

O rly?

I wish I had more than 50 posts so I could put up a picture of the Bugatti Veyron!

 

[AV1611VET]

I took a survey course that had a lot of trigonometry and we had to run the math into the computer. But soon after that Texas Instrament came out with calculators that would do the math.

I had to learn to read 5-hole punched paper tape in the Navy.

Back then, I could read it like a book -- today, I don't even remember the alphabet.

 

[AV1611VET]

O rly?

I wish I had more than 50 posts so I could put up a picture of the Bugatti Veyron!

Spoiler: Bugatti Veyron

 

[RickG]

How does warming damage the environment? There is perhaps some damage to the Coral but the King Crabs are growing like gang busters. The real damage is from the chemical run off from the farms and lawns. That is what creates the dead zones in the oceans and great lakes.

One of the big problems is acidification of the oceans. Most of the CO2 is going into the oceans. What happens is the critters with calcium carbonate shells begin to lose them. This is already seen in plankton and corals.