The supposed “global cooling” consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The ’70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends…
“A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales.”
We will never run short of the odd, egregious git who thinks his own chilblains explain away science. It’s useful to see the record set straight.
I randomly googled four names from the list of the 19,000 signers. Two did not come up anywhere but on the list of signers. These two did come up. You be the judge of whether these two sound like climate scientists to you. Then google a few on your own and see how you do.
http://tinyurl.com/292tvu
http://tinyurl.com/yrxyrf
In short, people, when you want to contradict the vast majority of climate scientists in the world because you think you’re smarter than the scientists of the IPCC, at least do a little due diligence. Maybe you won’t need my help anymore.
And many of the IPCC signers are bureaucrats rather than scientists. There have been more than one lawsuit from former climatologist members of IPCC suing to have their names removed from the reports because they so strongly disagreed with the politically motivated final publication. You have to publish where you can when there is an anti-capitalist push to supress the truth.
The really interesting this is I have yet to see any proof of anything bad coming from GW.
#33–Blowme==so, you are sitting in your rumpus room blotto on your favorite twist top fortified beverage and it is reported your house is on fire===but YOU remain calm, “cause I doan’t see nothin on fire right here?”
I’ll look for your picture under “short sighted.”
I don’t need to “believe” in global warming.
I think pollution is bad, and should be minimized.
I think dependence on oil is bad, and should be reduced.
I think wasting energy is bad, so improving energy efficiency is good, and switching off lights and unplugging cell phone chargers is good.
I think we can agree on these points without arguing about the weather.
And anyway, didn’t you get the memo: we don’t call it global warming any more. We call it climate change – that way it doesn’t matter if it gets warmer in one place and colder in another, or if the average temperature goes up, down, or doesn’t change – we can still pray to Al Gore to save us.
So the media ignored what the scientists were really saying, took a few that were saying alarmist things, and hyped them. Sounds familiar.
Now, there is also the small possibility that the actual observed could be false. The temperature monitoring statements throughout the United States are not as reliable as they should be, with one near OHare airport, right off the parking lot, etc. We’ll now more when all the stations have been reviewed, but the preliminary review showed many to be flimsy.
More recently we have a Harvard scientist adding to the ‘sun causes global warming’ literature. Imagine that!
So, its global warming again this week? I keep getting confused. I mean, how do you libs expect to sell this thing, if you can’t decide what to call it. I am still back on climate change as the word of the week, maybe if I stick by that long enough, it will come back around again.
#33 – MrBloedumpSpladderschitt,
I’ve got another one for you to read, if you have a long enough attention span to read a full length science book instead of getting all of your information from 20 second sound bites sponsored by your favorite energy supply company.
Under A Green Sky – Peter D. Ward. Paperback due in April, 2008. This book is about mass extinctions. There have been 5 major ones, plus the one we’re in and causing today. One is known to be caused by a cometary impact 65.3 million years ago. The author is one of the scientists who proved that. Now he is presenting excellent evidence that the others were not caused by impact. The cause of the four others just happens to be non-anthopogenic global warming.
So, if the idea of a human caused, Permian/Triassic level extinction doesn’t scare you then bobbo probably has you pegged perfectly in post #34.
BTW, bobbo, ROFLMAO!!!
Obama has this figured out. Relax.
#37 – MikeN,
I’ve read a number of the Cosmic Rays/Solar Radiation*, or whatever they’re calling it this week articles. They’re quite interesting. Of the ones I’ve read, all but one agreed that the percentage contribution from the increased solar radiation is between 5 and 15 percent of the observed global warming/climate change*. The odd one out stated a range between 5 and 30% of the observed global warming.
So, even if you take the extreme range of the extremist version of the articles and go with 30% as an upper limit, though I’d probably stick with 15%, you’d still end up with 70-95% of global warming being human caused, or 85-95% in my case.
Either way, whichever range you choose, you’ll still be left with the unavoidable conclusion that as the solar radiation decreases, we may see a very slight decrease in the rate of global warming, but will still be left with an enormous problem on our hands.
* A rose by any other name …. Some people say global warming; the more accurate term is anthropogenic climate change. The reason for the latter term is to specify the human cause and the disparate results on local climates. Overall, the planet will definitely warm and has already begun to do so. Locally, the effects will vary from region to region, some may even cool, especially northern Europe if the jet stream does in fact shut down as many, but not all, scientists predict.
#31 Scott, that’s the best news I’ve heard yet. I hope we can avoid the eventual return to glaciation by intentionally causing global warming.
While I regard global warming (regardless of human involvement) as probable, the best evidence is near the poles. The evidence from the 48 states is highly suspect as someone else mentions above. The weather recording stations have had parking lots and buildings built next to them, and the people doing the studies based on the readings refused for a long time to release their notes until after a Canadian statistician blogger recreated their methodology and figured out where they screwed up. (I no longer have the link on this computer, thanks to the firewall, that’s enough information to twitch someone’s memory and maybe they can post it?)
As you should be well aware, science is all about making a claim and proving it, and releasing your notes so other people can duplicate the studies, or not. A study without the notes being released is worthless. It is not science, it is an unsubstantiated claim. I’m going to say the same about any computer models. If anyone wants to claim something by computer model, it should be released.
I keep hearing about climate studies and models without public release. That’s something we should focus on and settle that out.
News Flash! Dynamic Earth has undergone changes in weather patterns ALL caused by MAN over the past 4 Billion years…19,000 scientists concur!
All the while man has not being around for 99.999999999999% of that time. Oops, another one of those pesky inconvenient FACTS shows up to ruin a good lie and expose a Nobel Prize as a big fat liar.
S’plain that Lib-castrati.
#42–Phillep==I read several of those articles and they certainly highlighted the need for accurate measuring–I agree. Would be pretty silly if all those scientists had it wrong because of a coupla dozen bad positions? Make you wonder why those Swedes don’t use their own measuring devices? Oh?–they do? Nevermind.
I find it convincing there is a species shift going North where Southern warm weather species are showing up==Robins in Eskimo Country==they’re having to create new words for animals they have never seen. Growing grapes in England. Wheat farms starting up in Candada. Lots of “large geographic” measurements–not the amusing parking lot meter outside O’Hare.
So, its interesting how we evaluate EVIDENCE for a new idea and how/why we question experts in their area of expertise “I had a friend once” or “In my personal experience” and so forth.
Its why humans are largely religious. Certainty is more comfortable than doubt regardless of how Aquinas tried to seduce the scientists of the time.
Revisionist bushwah. I lived through this period and remember the cooling hysteria in the media, which was generated by the science of the time. The next ice age was around the corner unless we did something about it immediately, and the consensus at least seemed universal. A bit Orwellian isn’t it?
Yes the same scientists that have wedded themselves to the idea that global warming is manmade and society needs to be remade as they declare, the same scientists that say it is OK to exaggerate and lie to get the public moving(Stephen Schwartz is one), when the sun is suggested as a causal factor, they assure us it is just a small part of the warming, and their original theory was true all along.
You trot out this 85-95%. There is no consensus on this. Some say a small amount, and some say it is the primary cause. A chart of solar radiation vs temperature shows a high correlation.
#44 – bobbo,
Thanks for answering that for me while I was watching a movie. Well said!!
#46 – MikeN,
Clearly since some say it is the primary cause, you have a peer reviewed article or two that state this. If you make such a claim, please post the links. I’ve searched. As I said, none claim higher than 5-30%. If you wish to claim primary cause, feel free, but a link would help. Don’t know how to find one? Try scholar.google.com.
Bobbo, I find your attitude surprising. If that was the scientific consensus, then it should have been followed, even though they were wrong. That was the idea that got us into Iraq. You compare it to the house being on fire. Well the fix for that is you go outside and check, and if you were wrong all you lost was a few minutes. If instead the change was you tear down the walls and rebuild them with cement, then maybe you be a little more certain. If people had fought global cooling in the 70s then maybe there would be even more global warming now.
Your desire to follow the dictates of others is disturbing.
My recollections of global cooling center on two concepts.
The first was that Ice Ages are cyclic. We are currently in a warm cycle BUT a cold cycle will happen. We don’t know when, but it will happen. Most of the discussion was on the sub-scientific level by non-scientists, mostly with high school science.
The second and more prevalent, newsworthy, and notable were the cooling effects from a Nuclear Winter. These scenarios were presented by scientists and got the attention they deserved. The arguments also got the people involved into thinking more about the consequences of their actions.
Yes TIME, Time, National Geographic and others might have articles. They, however, as good as they are, are not peer reviewed scientific articles. They are geared for mass consumption and require advertising and subscriptions to earn enough profit to survive. That does not mean their articles are irrelevant or wrong, only that they should not be taken as source material.
#30, Scott,
The “Project” is a sham. There might be 19,000 signatures, but, you are quite correct,
2,660 scientists were trained in physical or environmental sciences (physics, geophysics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, or environmental science) while 25% were trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, or other life sciences.[2]
The Petition further states they have 19,700 signatures to date.
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition
BTW, to add to your list of academic credentials must be those new scholarly institutions – Online College and Paper Mill University. Does home schooling grant degrees?
#48–MikeN===well, answer the second part of my statement==if you are not following the consensus of the relevant scientific thought==THEN WHAT ARE YOU FOLLOWING?
Note that was an “if” only to highlight the thought process as in fact there was no consensus at the time. CONSENSUS is very difficult to establish.
I can’t begin to think of any consensus that should not be the basis for societal planning. Can You?
Ok, I have a philosophical conundrum here. Every time climate change is discussed, I always hear about resulting sunken cities, diminishing coastlines and the mass extinctions resulting therefrom, etc.
The point of the argument being: Humans must not disturb nature.
Now, what if we discover this climate change is mostly natural and the earth is headed for an ecological disaster, with diminishing coastlines, mass extinctions, etc.
Do we still let nature run it’s course or do we attempt climate change to maintain the status quo?
Global warming only exists because we defeated global cooling so soundly.
Hopefully next time we will only narrowly defeat global warming, so we don’t have to face the menace of global cooling yet again.
It is a difficult problem facing these twin menaces, but at least we haven’t yet faced the menace of “climate change stagnation” where human activity causes the climate to remain the same.
Global cooling “chilblains?” Very punny. Which thesaurus are you using?
#52–Ah Yea==I think you missed the point, and yet so close.
The point is lets not act in a way that will sink our cities, coastlines, disrupt civilization.
IF WE COULD control nature to achieve this end, of course we would and should do it–with no argument for nature’s rights to be countenanced.
Sadly, we cannot control nature, including ourselves and the only question remaining is when will it all happen? I think I’ll live to see insurance companies redlining entire coastal areas. In fact, if you were going to build a World Edifice today expected to stand for 200 years===how close to sea level would you build it?
#48 – MikeN,
If people had fought global cooling in the 70s then maybe there would be even more global warming now.
They did and there is. The fight wasn’t really about cooling though. It was about particulate pollution that was causing global dimming. Now that we have less particulate matter blocking the sun, we have found that CO2 is a worse greenhouse gas than had been suspected. Global dimming and it’s reduction had not been accounted for.
#52 – Ah_Yea,
Now, what if we discover this climate change is mostly natural and the earth is headed for an ecological disaster, with diminishing coastlines, mass extinctions, etc.
Do we still let nature run it’s course or do we attempt climate change to maintain the status quo?
Let’s burn that bridge when we come to it. Thus far, it is not an issue.
#55 – bobbo,
Sadly, we cannot control nature, including ourselves and the only question remaining is when will it all happen? I think I’ll live to see insurance companies redlining entire coastal areas. In fact, if you were going to build a World Edifice today expected to stand for 200 years===how close to sea level would you build it?
Let’s hope like hell that you’re incorrect on that one. If correct, we do have a P/T level extinction coming our way. I’m not saying you are incorrect. However, if there is any hope of us changing our ways, we must do so. For our survival and for the survival of many more beautiful species than ourselves.
As for your 200 years, that is way too short a term to think about. If we are talking about survival, remember, our species has been around just 200,000 years. We need to think in terms of millions and hundreds of millions of years. Unfortunately, at present, I’m wondering whether I will be alive at the start of the Great Human Die Off, which I predict in the not too distant future. I still maintain that our planet cannot sustain billions of humans.
Scott–I don’t expect Human Dieoff from anything we can see trending today.
I DO SEE coastal flooding possible in the next 50 years. New York City only needs a good storm right now to flood the subways completely and all the electrical and computer rooms too. Expensive, but recoverable–then the ocean rises another 4 inches and the storms become stronger and more often and more Northerly.
Won’t be long for the canary in the coal mine (the Ins Co’s — based in NYC or London also at sea level plus 3 feet) acts in its eco nomic survival and red lines. THEN even nut bag neo-cons will raise their heads out of their portfolios and conclude that if Global Warming is affecting their tax free income, it must be real. HAR!!!!!!!!
bobbo,
I have numerous reasons for expecting the Great Human Die Off potentially at the end of my life (as I will not be able to survive without today’s infrastructure, being type 1 diabetic). I have detailed a number of them on my blog at http://tinyurl.com/yv6aa4. Since you and I have debated the point there quite extensively, I think we should just agree to disagree on the topic. My main reason for expectation of the die off sooner rather than later is a combination of the fact that food supply is already in decline while population continues to increase, giving us a smaller and smaller buffer of surplus each year. Global warming will further reduce food supplies, exacerbating the situation significantly.
My wife just heard at one lecture that our food supply is so tenuous at this point that two el nino years within four years, there will be huge crop failures and mass starvation killing millions. That may not yet be billions, but we’re getting closer to real serious problems here.
Scott–from our prior discussions, I had not retained your notion a significant die-off was emminent. Am I THAT wrapped up in my own opinion (smile!).
So–10’s of millions starving to death would just be a blip. I don’t even think it would cause a change in attitude about anything.
But yes–human culture on earth is supported by a vast web of interconnected relationships we still only have an inkling of–and they are all under great stress as we blog. I still think a la War of the Worlds, it will be a virus that takes us out, I just think it would be somehow more “fair” if we don’t create that virus ourselves?
One of my favorite factoids: During the Irish Potato Famine, the ex-patriot English Lords living in Ireland exported wheat back to England for their race horses. Even with a world starvation scenario–there will be enough food to feed everyone, it just won’t get distributed. Don’t know how much will be turned into ethanol for our cars, but some still will be.
bobbo,
Yeah. The ethanol thing bothers me a lot. If it’s created from things like corn cobs rather than kernels, or some other means, it’s not that bad, though generally still not really worth it. However, when it is from kernels or sugar cane or any other plant grown solely for making ethanol, it is taking either valuable food or land on which food could have been produced. Either way, that’s a bit too close to running our cars on the blood of poor people. That’s just how the equation works. I hope we find other fuel sources and ways to reduce our energy needs, including reduction of human population through voluntary means.
Bobbo & Scott,
Using “waste” agricultural material to make ethanol IS a waste. That plant waste is best returned to the soil. This waste vegetable matter (humus) helps hold the soil together, retains nutrients, and holds water. Without a constant resupply, the soil will quickly become sterile and only able to support plant life through expensive means. It will erode much faster too.
Like all of Mother Nature’s gifts, we need to use them properly. Raping the earth of everything will leave nothing.
Great discussion you guys are having.