Climate scientists can only find seven. But they can save the world.
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/a-new-treasure-trove-of-1970s-global-cooling-articles/?
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
Thank you Steven. Hopefully I or somebody with a little more time to spare will be able to go through the list of names appearing in my blog, and see what they were publishing in the scientific literature.
The Schneider quote in particular about 1972 being the tipping point from “warming” to “cooling” is priceless (if accurate!).
People with the usual tired replies (“it’s all newspaper articles!”) should explain how exactly different journalists in different continents speaking different languages managed to sustain the “global cooling meme” for so many years in face of overwhelmingly contrary scientific opinion (that I pretty much doubt ever existed).
Also it is important to note that, far from being the silly democratic/committee-based endeavor of our times, science in the past had its superstars, with authorities built upon hard work and capable of single-handedly defining what the consensus was: climatologist Mitchell in 1972 (mind you, correctly mentioned even by Peterson, Connolley and Fleck even if they forgot what that article meant) like paleontologist Glaessner in 1957.
So all the counting up of cooling vs warming articles may amount to literally nothing, just like a soccer team scoring 500 goals in Third Division still won’t be remembered as the year’s national champion.
Thank you.
Apparently no climate scientists read newspapers or magazines during that decade and were unaware that their work was being misrepresented. As we know, climate scientists shy away from publicity and the press. They like their work to be low profile.
William Connolley will do his best to explain it away. ChrisD will quote him.
I’ve got a list at home for some articles of global cooling meme. Sadly, most of the articles I’ve come across are behind paywalls. I’ll post it here later today when I get home. I hate history revision. People trying to pretend the looming ice age was something the media made up are the worst sort of reality deniers. But, I’ve seen enough evidence to state that not only was global cooling a concern with scientists at the time, for many it was an obsession.
last time this came up i posted a video of schneider on cooling for brendan and chris.
but, but, but, but,…
As promised,
Notes: this reflects about two hours of work with many beer breaks in between. Trying to dig up history on the internets can be tedious.
One of the words thrown around today in climate science and specifically attached to that Orwellian study is consensus. To my knowledge, that word has never been used in science prior to the CAGW/climate change/disruption scam. Truly though, there was as much as a consensus then as there is now. It wasn’t specifically labeled as such then just as it is fictional now. I’ve never read the lunatic study stating there never was a global cooling scare propagated by the scientific community, but I understand certain criteria was inappropriately applied. I wonder what the results would be if the same criteria was applied to today’s studies? (Even though it is clear the peer-review process has been hi-jacked by ideologues.)
About the peer-review process, it doesn’t seem to have been used in the same manner then as it is today. I believe there were still a great many scientists simply submitting papers and they were printed and disseminated, as least it seems that way in my review of AAAS papers during an era gone by. We’d have to ask a scientist that has practiced for over 40 years to know for sure.
This isn’t posted to show who said what or whether global cooling was a consensus or not, but only that it was the overwhelming topic of discussion in the climate science arena during that time, much like global warming is today. Sadly, I find most of the intriguing information behind pay-walls. I had more, but upon review, some have been disappeared!
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature 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.
—Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.
—Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971) <———-Hey that’s the same reason we’re told we’re warming!
Nigel Calder (1975): The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.(writer for Science)
Certain signs, some of them visible to the layman as well as the scientist, indicate that we have been watching an ice age approach for some time without realizing what we are seeing… Scientists predict that it will cause great snows which the world has not seen since the last ice age thousands of years ago.
– Betty Friedan, “The coming Ice Age”, Harper’s Magazine, Sept, 1958(psycologist)
An increase by only a factor of 4 in the 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. – S.I Rasool and S.H. Schneider
Science, v173, p138, 9/7/1971.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qvcNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_3sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5498,3270345&dq=allintitle:+ice+age
Dr. Earl W. Barrett of ESSA
“The possibility of a new man-made, life-destroying ice age was reported by Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA). It quoted Dr. Earl W. Barrett of ESSA Research Laboratories, Boulder, Colo., as saying the planet’s total environment “is being altered, perhaps disastrously and irreversibly, by human activities.”
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=h_0NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=I3wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3656,4469550&dq=allintitle:+ice+age
Paul Cato meteorologist
“If man keeps piping pollution into the atmosphere, he could bring on a new Ice Age that would cover states like Florida with 400 feet of water, television meteorologist Paul Cato told the High Noon Club here yesterday.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html
Marine Geologist Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami,
In what direction will the earth’s climate then turn? Emiliani refuses to speculate. But if man continues his “interference with climate through deforestation, urban development and pollution,” says Emiliani in typical scientific jargon, “We may soon be confronted with either a runaway glaciation or a runaway deglaciation, both of which would generate unacceptable environmental stresses.”<——–The money quote!
Most of the full studies are behind paywalls, so we’re stuck with abstracts.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138
S. I. Rasool 1 and S. H. Schneider
“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.”
Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, New York 10025
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/193/4252/447 <———GW article that acknowledges the dominant past concern of global cooling!
“The world’s inhabitants, including Scientists, live primarily in the Northern Hemisphere. It is quite natural to be concerned about events that occur close to home and neglect faraway events. Hence, it is not surprising that so little attention has been given to the Southern Hemisphere. Evidence for global cooling has been based,……….”
The difference between the global cooling alarm and the global warming alarmism? The method of delivery is more sophisticated. The ability to propagandize has been enhanced by psuedo-scientists. Well, my alarm is that they are learning from their failures of the past.
Just to clarify, I am wrong in thinking that the 7 ‘articles’ you mention are actually published science papers while this other 15 articles, are indeed just that – magazine articles and the like?
Just to clarify, my blogs are written using the Latin alphabet
Yup, that’s correct. Most of the main variants of this Denier fraud are discussed in “The 1970s ‘Ice Age 9? Myth“
Greenfyre is right, and all the mentioned, quoted and interviewed scientists in all those articles were ignorant fraudsters, just like Peterson, Connolley and Fleck when they recently wrote: “By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood“.
In other news: Mark Twain, Charles Darwin and President Abraham Lincoln were white supremacists, as demonstrated by their continuous use of the word “negro”.
No Lazarus,
You are wrong in thinking that anyone on this site would admit that they were wrong about anything. They will post “evidence” that supports their position and if questioned, just keep posting things until there is enough noise that they can believe they were right all along.
Neither you nor Chris nor I said there was no one saying there would be global cooling. But people keep posting articles that quote people saying there would be global cooling.
the three of us pointed out that the scientific articles almost all mention the huge amount of aerosols being pumped into the atmosphere, and the cooling was predicated on that.
And it has been shown that there were plenty of articles that warned about global warming.
But as I have stated previously. They can’t allow themselves to be wrong about anything. or even allow a shade of grey. That would open the door to doubt and that cannot be given even a sliver of possibility. The shame of being wrong cannot taint these proud warriors for freedom, God and America. That is why they can be so insulting, because they ARE right and anyone who opposes them is either an idiot or a tool of the nefarious forces of evil.
And this is a case of grey. There were scientists making dire predictions that were not based on enough research to merit such predictions. Of course in a few years, when aerosol pollution declined and there had been more focused extensive research, the idea of anthropocentric cooling was abandoned by all climate scientists. Kind of gives me faith in the climate scientists that they changed their minds when the facts dictated such.
But not here. The fact that some believed in the possibility of disastrous cooling, proves that they ALL are just shills for the global conspiracy to destroy America, and the whole peer review process has been perverted. and blahdy blah blah.
Tony – let’s leave aside all the philosophizing shall we? What is your answer to the question: “Did the scientists believe in the 1970s that there was global cooling?”
It seems you’d answer “Yes” but it’s better to get it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
The “global cooling consensus” idea is much more important that as an example of scientists being able to change their minds.
You see, Pakistan can’t really flood in the 1970s because of cooling, and in 2010 because of warming. Or can it? Perhaps it can: but then somebody should actually explain that, if only to avoid a huge dent in reputation.
My Omnilogos. You could read what I posted above your response. But to save you the trouble.
Your question is incomplete or misleading. If you are asking is ALL scientists believed there was global cooling that was likely to lead to catastrophic consequences, the answer is no. The correct question is “what did scientists think about the possibility of a dangerous iminent global cooling. The answer is SOME Scientists in the 70’s believed there was a possibility of a continued dangerous global cooling. Some did not. there was no consensus, and there were definitlu scientists who beleived there would be global warming. There WAS a global cooling up to the 70’s and scientists were aware of it. Some of those scientists believed that continued large amounts of aerosols in the atmosphere would offset the warming from GHG.
I read the article you posted and it is only mild garbage. He ignores that scientists were well aware of GHG and the effect on climate in the 70’s and it was being discussed then. He predictably goes on about “AGW’s unhealthy attachment to catastrophism”. Then he says that they are unwilling to accept any part of AGW being wrong -Ignoring the actual scientific debates that are ongoing in the peer reviewed world. He then admits that there was no consensus about a new ice age, because the cooling was bad enough and neglects to mention that this whole question is ONLY an issue because deniers hysterically proclaimed that climate scientists were predicting an ICE AGE in the 70’s. I know it is true, I lived through it!
He is right though that honest warmers do not shy from history. Please show me one that contends there were no scientists worried about global cooling in the 70’s.
And why should I be denied what you call philosophizing, when it is so much fun, and it is done in spades by most everyone else on this site?
Especially about this issue which is so obvious and easily verifiable and yet you and the other deniers on this site are convinced that this issue is indicative about how untrustworthy climate scientists are.
and yes Pakistan can flood in both colder and warmer climates. The explanation is that it rains a lot and water flows over river banks and people get wet.
Tony – just to say the “he” is actually me. For the rest, you haven’t read a word of what I wrote, really, here or at my blog, as all you’re doing is repeat the same old arguments.
Bye.
“than”, not “that”
Omnologos,
Well I did spell your name wrong. Sorry.
And what a rebuttal.
Maybe I am repeating the arguments because they are true.
So what is it that I missed? I just reread this blog comment and it is exactly the same as the first time I read it. I just reread YOUR blog post and it is exactly the same as the first time I read it.
What is inaccurate in my response to you? Am I wrong? Were there no scientists promoting the idea of global warming due to GHG then? Were there no scientists who DID contend a dangerous cooling NOT attribute it to aerosols?
You state there was no global cooling up to the 70’s, but then you say they didn’t know that so they were clearly NOT wrong in stating the current situation. Only wrong in not considering that aerosol concentrations would decrease significantly. and maybe wrong in their margin of attribution.
I clearly have read hundreds of posts and comments on these kind of blogs decrying that ALL or most of the scientists were predicting an ice age in the 70’s.
Please show me how I am completely wrong about all of this.
How can I show anything you don’t want to see? For example…I asked you about “global cooling” and you replied about “dangerous imminent global cooling”. Then I have argued how talking about irrelevant is to talk about “ice age”, and you replied that “this whole question is ONLY an issue because deniers hysterically proclaimed that climate scientists were predicting an ICE AGE in the 70?s”.
It’s like you order from me a car, I bring you a car. Then you say you didn’t want just any car, you want specifically a 7-seater. I bring you a 7-seater. Then you say you didn’t want just any 7-seater, you want a red one. Please forgive me if at that point I stop trying to deliver to you any car at all.
In fact I have written an entire blog showing that your “ONLY” is wrong on many counts. More than that, I am not sure what I should be trying.
Omnologos,
no need for you to be “trying” all you have to do is read what I wrote.
I answered your questions. Very clearly and explicitly. I did not avoid anything.
Are you telling me that this did NOT become an issue because deniers were howling about scientists predicted an ice in the 70’s?
I told you exactly what I think scientists believed. Show me that I am wrong, and I will retract what I said.
I will repeat. there WERE scientists who believed that there was a current cooling. There were temperature records that indicated that. How can you fault them for believing what you say appeared to be true? There were scientists who believed that this potential would lead to dangerous cooling. They turned out to be wrong.
So I DID answer you about global cooling.
There were also scientists, some of them who believed in continued cooling, who also believed in warming due to GHG. There were scientists who believed there would be increasing temps due to ACC. There was no consensus of scientists who believed that there was going to be a dangerous cooling in the 70’s.
You wrote that you said “ice age” was irrelevent. I pointed out that it wasn’t irrelevent.
This was the argument made by deniers – That climate scientists tried to scare us with an irrational belief in cooling in the 70’s and now they are doing the same thing with an irrational belief in warming. All they care about is scaring us so you can’t believe anything they say. –
That is not what happened. That is not accurate history. If you show me I am wrong about that then you have a valid point, and I will be happy to admit it.
You haven’t brought me any car. I haven’t asked for any. I am sorry that you imagined bringing me one.
Once again I ask you, what is it that I have written that is factually incorrect or is not relevant to what you posted, or incorrectly describes what you have written. I have read both your comment and blog twice now, and reread what I wrote.
We both speak the same language, so it shouldn’t be hard.
Tony – “I answered your questions”
No, you haven’t. Twice, I have asked: “Did the scientists believe in the 1970s that there was global cooling?”.
Rather than replying to that you kept embarking in all sorts of arguments about predictions of an “ice age” and of a “dangerous imminent global cooling”. We might end up, one day, discussing about those, but only if you get your mind around to answer my question, thank you, exactly as it is written, no qualifiers, no sophisms, no interpretation. If we can’t agree on what the meaning of “is” is, everything else is a waste of time.
And be careful about what your answer is, since I do have an answer that has been peer-reviewed 😎
If I have to answer THAT exact question, I will. But I have to put a qualifier on the end, because I made the mistake of thinking we were both talking in the same language.
the ANSWER is NO, THE scientists did not believe there was global cooling in the 70’s. There is no such thing as THE scientists, so “they” couldn’t have believed it.
I am sorry for making this so hard for you, but if you want you can rephrase your question, so a rational answer is possible.
I also have told you that there was data that showed the planet had cooled somewhat since the 1940’s, and as far as I know there were no major disputes about the reality of that. So if your question REALLY is “did any scientists dispute that the planet had cooled since the 40’s?”, my answer would be. “As far as I know – no.”
What is the need for a peer reviewed answer? this has nothing to do with the science. We are talking about history that at least I lived through. I have explained to you what I think scientists believed in the 70’s and you consider that evasion of some sort. I have told you (this is the third time) that SOME scientists believed that the slight cooling that was being experienced at the time could continue and get more extreme.
There were some that thought GHG would cause the earth to heat up. There was no consensus about the trajectory of temperature on the planet.
I am not sure how much clearer or more accommodating I can be with the way you are proceeding about this issue.
This is actually quite fascinating as I can’t predict what your response to this will be. I hope it does not include cars though.
I must say you have an odd idea of the word pejorative however. And I would say that I don’t use the word denier as a pejorative, but I do use the word Cultist as one.
Tony –
The planet? “Global”. Cooled? “Cooling”. No dispute? “Consensus”. There we have the Global Cooling Consensus of the 1970s.
See? It shouldn’t have been that difficult. 😎
Actually, GCC pertains to the period between 1972 and 1975, more or less (see bottom of this comment)
How can that be reconciled with the idea that “THE scientists did not believe there was global cooling in the 70?s”, am not sure. I have a feeling, that there is a certain amount of concern in admitting what has actually happened, just in case that is used against the notion of AGW. That is a real pity, as historical facts should be taken as such, not in light of what their interpretation might or might not do to the present times’ politics.
I happen to think that history is a science too. Anyway, the peer-reviewed answer is a sentence by Peterson, Connolley and Fleck in their “Myth of a 1970s Global Cooling Consensus” paper: “By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood“.
Notice the word “trend”…there is little surprise then that a global cooling trend would inspire many scientists into talking with the press about large future temperature drops. Readers were then exposed to this “consensus on a dangerous imminent global cooling” idea, and that’s why the “myth” was not a “myth” but the reality for millions all over the world.
“Some” scientists? If there were scientists in comparable numbers talking about global warming, for some reason they had little or no audience at all, for a while at least. Then we move to 1979 (again, keep in mind those dates) and that’s when the confusion was in charge of it all: “At the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science…the consensus seemed to be that, rather than experience either a warming trend or a cooling trend, we shall have both. Although not at the same time, fortunately.” (from the Milwaukee Sentinel).
And that brings to the other level of the discussion…by talking of a “myth of global cooling consensus in the 1970s” mainstream science denies history also by conflating ten (rather revolutionary) years into an impossible single item.
If only we were free to talk about what has happened, we would be more free overall too.