The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

Weather events from around the world plus Astronomy and Geology and other Natural events.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#1 Postby x-y-no » Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:57 pm

Well, someone has finally gone to the trouble of doing a comprehensive literature search to test the oft-repaeted allegation that climate scientists in the '70s said we were rapidly headed for an ice age.

Here's the full paper. (pdf document)

The bottom line is this:

In the period from 1965 through 1979, there were
* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral

Some consensus, eh?
0 likes   

User avatar
gigabite
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 916
Age: 70
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Naples, Florida

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#2 Postby gigabite » Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:46 pm

The average earth sun distance was 4158.76 kilometers further away in the summers of the first half of the 1970’s making the solar constant 1367.56 W/m^s then whereas the summers at the beginning of 2010’s it will be 1367.60 W/m^2. Which means there was less ground heating in the summers of the early 1970.

The total annual effect of the greenhouse effect will always be a factor of solar constant in the winter based on the ground temperature northern hemisphere.
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#3 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:20 pm

I'm a global warming doubter, (not a denier, as GW appears real, and AGW could be real, I'm just not 100%), but it is good to see true debate.

If Dr. Gray is right, and cooling starts in three decades, most of us will be here to see it.



The Home Depot near my house is selling Cuban "Royal" Palms, and just a tad bit of global warming would actually be a good thing, or else those trees will be goners in one of our once a decade 20ºF freezes soon.


Me, I got a miniature date palm as a gift, and it is pretty, but suffers foliage damage every hard freeze, but so far, has survived 7 years of bitter Houston winters, while my Washingtonia Robusta just laugh at our HOU area freezes, even the 25ºF that preceded our 2004 Christmas Eve Miracle dusting of snow, and per the internet, can survive brief excursions even into the high teens, Farenheit.
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#4 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:25 pm

The 2004 freeze, despite wrapping in frost paper, killed my young lemon trees. But the orange trees, planted the same time, survived and even fruited.

Just a tiny bit of global warming, and I could have lemons.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#5 Postby x-y-no » Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:55 pm

What do any of the above comments have to do with the topic of the thread?
0 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#6 Postby MGC » Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:11 pm

The media back in the 1970's were pushing the ice-age threat back then. Go look up issues of various news type magazines and see for yourself. Perhaps the author is correct and scintific litetrature did correctly argue the case of global warming but the national media didn't want to hear that. On the contrary, the media in its quest to make a dime, pushed the gloom-and-doom senario that Earth would soon be a big chunk of ice and humanity would perish. Today is no different, the media is again pushing a gloom-and-doom senario that the Earth is going to become too hot for humans and we had better start changing our ways or else. I believe that the current warming trend is natural and it will start cooling again. The warming we are observing started back in the 1800's, how long it will continue is anyones guess. Perhaps we are experiencing another Medieval warming period. I'd rather the Earth warm than cool......MGC
0 likes   

User avatar
HURAKAN
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 46086
Age: 37
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Key West, FL
Contact:

#7 Postby HURAKAN » Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:18 pm

I won't argue on the possible impacts of GW in the future, but what I know is that today we're having a significant impact on the planet compared to the time in the Middle Ages.
0 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#8 Postby MGC » Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:28 pm

Earth survived the Medieval warm period and will survive the current warm period. This is nothing more than fear mongering by the radicals in the enviromental movement. The media will follow the monies. On a side note, I have heard that Al Gore has made millions pushing green causes, perhaps he can pay his power bill for his mansion now....MGC
0 likes   

User avatar
HURAKAN
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 46086
Age: 37
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Key West, FL
Contact:

#9 Postby HURAKAN » Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:34 pm

I think you may be ignoring the enormous amount of CO2 that is put back in the atmosphere every year. Also, the cutting down of vast forests to create cities. I don't think it's just the Media, data supports that changes are happening and we are helping. It's not that difficult to imagine, more CO2 in the atmosphere, a more warmer planet.

I'm sure that in Medieval Warm period humans didn't have the technology to influence the global climate.

If the Media is too far to the left, then you may be too far to the right. I try to be in the middle.
0 likes   

User avatar
HURAKAN
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 46086
Age: 37
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Key West, FL
Contact:

#10 Postby HURAKAN » Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:41 pm

Image

By the way, we're already past the MWP's average temperature.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#11 Postby x-y-no » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:06 pm

MGC wrote:The media back in the 1970's were pushing the ice-age threat back then. Go look up issues of various news type magazines and see for yourself.


Thanks, I lived through the 70's. I remember well enough on my own that there were some articles in the popular magazines but the fact is there was no scientific consensus whatsoever.


Perhaps the author is correct and scintific litetrature did correctly argue the case of global warming but the national media didn't want to hear that. On the contrary, the media in its quest to make a dime, pushed the gloom-and-doom senario that Earth would soon be a big chunk of ice and humanity would perish. Today is no different, the media is again pushing a gloom-and-doom senario that the Earth is going to become too hot for humans and we had better start changing our ways or else. I believe that the current warming trend is natural and it will start cooling again. The warming we are observing started back in the 1800's, how long it will continue is anyones guess. Perhaps we are experiencing another Medieval warming period. I'd rather the Earth warm than cool......MGC


But the science is the point. Deniers claim that scientists in the 70's were saying we were headed for global cooling. As this literature survey shows, the opposite is true. And the point the deniers are trying to make with this argument is that we should dismiss three decades of science indicating significant anthropogenic global warming because allegedly those same scientists were arguing the opposite back in the 70's. Well, they weren't. It's a lie, pure and simple.
0 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#12 Postby MGC » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:52 pm

Where was the media getting their info from back in the 70's? Probably the same place it is getting it from today, scientist that are convinced that what the media is reporting is true. I don't believe that the mass majority of media is lying, they are just reporting things that sell and meets their agenda. Just because there is a consensus don't mean it is correct. As I recall scientist once thought the world was flat. There is also a consensus of scientist that think GW is a natural cycle but their view is being ignored by the media because it don't fit their agenda. Hurakan, the graph you posted has the medeival warm period as barely cracking zero anomaly yet at that time Greenland and Labador were inhabited by the Vikings which these areas were abandoned by the little ice age. Seems that temperature graph is suspect......MGC
0 likes   

User avatar
HURAKAN
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 46086
Age: 37
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Key West, FL
Contact:

#13 Postby HURAKAN » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:54 pm

:uarrow: The graph says "Temperature Anomaly", not actual temperature reading.
0 likes   

User avatar
gigabite
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 916
Age: 70
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Naples, Florida

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#14 Postby gigabite » Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:40 pm

My brother worked as research meteorologist technician in Alaska in the 70’s . The military doctrine he recanted was that there was going to be some melting of the polar ice caps followed by increased cloudiness then a decrease in temperature.

This was at the end of the Vietnam Conflict, he was the only person I ever heard talk of it until in the mid 80’s the EPA came out with this:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarmi ... apter3.pdf

It was after this report that the major media hit on the global warming subject. Before the big concern in the 70’s was DDT and once the EPA had solved that it had to reinvent it self to stay in existence.

The military doctrine was based on one media citation, and its conclusion about the termination of the Eemian interglacial : Emiliani, Cesare (1972). "Quaternary Paleotemperatures and the Duration of High-Temperature Intervals." Science 178: 398-401.

It is not the number of citations that count it is the substance of this one that is important. I think what Emiliani, et al are saying is that the rate of sea level rise is not sustainable, because it does not fit the historical pattern of rise and fall of the seas between glacial periods. At the rate the seas are rising the maximum sea level for a warming period will be achieved in less than 135,000 years. At an 1/8th of an inch per year maximum sea level rise would be in 5760 years or 4 percent of the interval suggested by the derived Paleolithic temperatures. So, therefore there are probably stages of warming and cooling before we get to maximum sea level.

The Mayan seem to have believed that the temperature eras were controlled by the contraction and elongation of Jupiter. They calculated that the end of the current era would be on 12/21/2012. It is actually 3/17/2011. They only missed it by 700 days. That is not bad for a caveman.

If it is so simple that a caveman can do it, how long will it take NASA?
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#15 Postby x-y-no » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:52 am

MGC wrote:Where was the media getting their info from back in the 70's? Probably the same place it is getting it from today, scientist that are convinced that what the media is reporting is true. I don't believe that the mass majority of media is lying, they are just reporting things that sell and meets their agenda.


Personally, I don't care if they got their wrong information from Bobo the Clown. Nowadays, they seem to be getting their wrong information from the likes of Michael Crichton and James Inhofe.

The one and only point of this post is that people like the two above-named denialists have claimed there was a scientific consensus in the '70s that we were headed for global cooling - and they use that alleged consensus to argue that the last three decades of science done on the issue should be ignored - or worse, that it's some grand conspiracy to defraud humanity. Well, as with just about everything they say, it's a load of bunk.


Just because there is a consensus don't mean it is correct. As I recall scientist once thought the world was flat.


Oh really? Prior to Aristotle, perhaps (although he was not the first to propose a spherical Earth, only the one to prove it.) But how meaningful is it really to speak of "scientists" over 2300 years ago? Little of the modern concept of science had been developed at that time.


There is also a consensus of scientist that think GW is a natural cycle but their view is being ignored by the media because it don't fit their agenda. Hurakan, the graph you posted has the medeival warm period as barely cracking zero anomaly yet at that time Greenland and Labador were inhabited by the Vikings which these areas were abandoned by the little ice age. Seems that temperature graph is suspect......MGC


Precious little of a consensus for that. You see, the meaning of "consensus" isn't just a few guys spouting opinions, it's what the great preponderance of actual science done shows.
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re:

#16 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:28 am

x-y-no wrote:What do any of the above comments have to do with the topic of the thread?



That a smidgen of global warming would be good for my fruit trees.


I guess a sense of humor was required to appreciate the subtle joke.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#17 Postby x-y-no » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:36 am

gigabite wrote:My brother worked as research meteorologist technician in Alaska in the 70’s . The military doctrine he recanted was that there was going to be some melting of the polar ice caps followed by increased cloudiness then a decrease in temperature.

This was at the end of the Vietnam Conflict, he was the only person I ever heard talk of it until in the mid 80’s the EPA came out with this:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarmi ... apter3.pdf

It was after this report that the major media hit on the global warming subject. Before the big concern in the 70’s was DDT and once the EPA had solved that it had to reinvent it self to stay in existence.


Oh, come on! You don't really believe this nonsense, do you? For one thing, the mid '80s were the height of the industrial waste clean-up issue (superfund and all that). EPA had plenty to do.

The military doctrine was based on one media citation, and its conclusion about the termination of the Eemian interglacial : Emiliani, Cesare (1972). "Quaternary Paleotemperatures and the Duration of High-Temperature Intervals." Science 178: 398-401.


They make military doctrines based on singular media citations? Really? I guess that explains "SNAFU."

I remember Emiliani well. The bastard actually came over and tried to hit on my mother while my dad was out on a research cruise. Anyway, my recollection of his work at this time was that he was trying to work out details of the past patterns of the ice age cycles and to a certain extent the mechanisms that drove them. It was becoming pretty clear by that time that this was driven by orbital mechanics (Milankovitch cycles.) I severely doubt that any of his work directly impacted on the relatively short-term issue of anthropogenic warming. It's certainly true (both then and now) that we can expect to head back into a cold phase some thousands of years in the future. That's a whole different issue from the immediate problem of AGW.


It is not the number of citations that count it is the substance of this one that is important. I think what Emiliani, et al are saying is that the rate of sea level rise is not sustainable, because it does not fit the historical pattern of rise and fall of the seas between glacial periods. At the rate the seas are rising the maximum sea level for a warming period will be achieved in less than 135,000 years. At an 1/8th of an inch per year maximum sea level rise would be in 5760 years or 4 percent of the interval suggested by the derived Paleolithic temperatures. So, therefore there are probably stages of warming and cooling before we get to maximum sea level.


What is your reason for thinking this? I don't have the paper in front of me and it's apparently not available online, but I'm almost dead sure Emiliani made no mention of projected sea-level rise. That just wasn't his field.

And at any rate, nobody disputes that even to this day we have only weak understanding of the impact of warming on ice sheet flows, which are obviously the area of most significant risk for significant sea-level rise. Why you would think that pointing out the far weaker understanding of over two decades ago demonstrates anything escapes me.


The Mayan seem to have believed that the temperature eras were controlled by the contraction and elongation of Jupiter. They calculated that the end of the current era would be on 12/21/2012. It is actually 3/17/2011. They only missed it by 700 days. That is not bad for a caveman.

If it is so simple that a caveman can do it, how long will it take NASA?


:uarrow: :?: :roll:
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#18 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:44 am

Unrelated to anything, but I thought that Maya legend was that the world would end in 2012.

Nor do I think the Maya were really tracking average global temperatures. IIRC, Maya culture almost disappeared, probably for climactic reasons, so if they were all that on climate prediction they should have seen the looming disaster.
0 likes   

User avatar
Extremeweatherguy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 11095
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re:

#19 Postby Extremeweatherguy » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:50 pm

HURAKAN wrote:Image

By the way, we're already past the MWP's average temperature.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Just to point out, at the bottom of the page showing this graph, it reads:
It should also be noted that many reconstructions of past climate report substantial error bars, which are not represented on this figure.


These "substantial error bars" need to be taken into account, IMO. For all we know, the temperatures in the past could have been near the top end of these error bars, and that would defeat the purpose of what this graph is trying to show in the first place.
0 likes   

User avatar
gigabite
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 916
Age: 70
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Naples, Florida

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#20 Postby gigabite » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:30 pm

Ed Mahmoud wrote:Unrelated to anything, but I thought that Maya legend was that the world would end in 2012.

Nor do I think the Maya were really tracking average global temperatures. IIRC, Maya culture almost disappeared, probably for climactic reasons, so if they were all that on climate prediction they should have seen the looming disaster.



http://home.att.net/~gigabite/JupiterSunD.gif

The Mayan civilization was about 5000 years old by 1524 c.a. They had many cities with populations 10,000 people and a few with 45,000 to 60,000 people. A stone age tribal culture rarely exceeds 30 people. They had to have a sophisticated agricultural science which would have to include a long range weather forecasting capability.

In 5,000 years of just observing the maximum elongation at sunrise they could draw a correlation between the mark at the observatory and the mark at the reservoir. No Newton required.

Every thing we know about the Mayan comes from two codex which had to be translated through a dialect of Aztec. I think the end of the world sounds like the end of an era.
0 likes   


Return to “Global Weather”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests