The official story when attempting to rewrite the history of the 1970s global cooling scare goes something like this:
In 1945, after 30 years of rapid warming, humans suddenly started dumping huge amounts of aerosol pollution into the atmosphere. When the clean air act passed in the US, suddenly the whole world stopped polluting and temperatures started to rise quickly – due to CO2 (of course.)
But now that Hansen’s 1988 forecasts have bombed, he is trying to resurrect the evil aerosols for a second round of blame.
We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols.
All climate can be explained by human made CO2 and human made aerosols, except for climate which is due to human made CFCs.
We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols.
====================================================
He just said that aerosols kept temperatures down more than they had figured.
….so less warming is attributed to CO2, and more warming is attributed to people using less hair spray
I hate all the pointing to aerosols pre-Clean Air Act to explain the lack of warming. The fact is, the measurements don’t exist then to confirm the speculation, and there are no sufficient proxies to take it into account. Sulfates cause cooling. Soot causes warming. Mixed sulfate/soot causes more warming than even pure soot. This last sentence is pretty new info and was not taken into account previously…so the amount of speculated cooling has to decrease…could even change to zero or change signs.
Dang ad hoc explanation that many people take without batting an eye…
-Scott
But wait Scott!!! I thought volcano soot causes cooling!?!?!?
Those aerosols are in the stratosphere. Absorbing (as opposed to scattering) aerosols cause localized heating…thus, if they’re in the stratosphere, they should warm it via light absorption. The reemission of energy after absorption will be in all directions, compared to the incoming light, which was towards the surface. Thus, less incoming light will reach the “surface”.
Clearly, the scattering effect will be similar regardless of location.
-Scott
But isn’t volcano soot hot?
Scott, damnitt! I’ve rewrote this 3 times!!!! And I’m drunk! Don’t do this anymore!
You said, “….Absorbing (as opposed to scattering) aerosols cause localized heating…thus, if they’re in the stratosphere,……
Scott, I value your opines, as do many others. Do you think this explanation is sufficient for most of the readers here?
Would it be possible for you to expound on the different aerosols, other than the ones that are stratospheric because they are localized?
Yes, I know that isn’t what you stated, but that’s how it came out.
Best wishes,
James
If CO2 causes warming and aerosols cause cooling, they would then largely cancel each other out and then natural causes would predominate. The fact that temperatures seem to have remained fairly constant would seem to indicate that human factors have been overplayed.
Not to mention the small factoid that the Second World War started in 1939… not 1945. I presume that is his assumed cause of the warming, yes?
Look, once and for all, there’s no double dipping!
I hate when I see it happen at parties. Ewwww!
Steve,
we have been over this. this was no global cooling scare. There were some scientists that specifically warned of the possibility, and some of the media picked it up. Your posts of the number of media and other references to it are a tiny fraction of media coverage of other environmental issues at the time.
I hate to say this but you are actually exaggerating when you say the narrative states that the whole world stopped polluting. I am pretty sure that there has been an awareness of the contribution from India China and things such as fires in Indonesia. But of course I could be wrong and scientists are just as stupid as you say
I agree that the global cooling scare is overemphasized Tony.
But the attribution to the lack of warming/small cooling during that time to changes in aerosols is very commonplace…yet the data simply aren’t there to confirm it. It’s speculation for a reason behind an observation that doesn’t fit the hypothesis.
-Scott
Scott,
attribution is a very difficult thint to do especially with climate. No conclusions is the best that Hansen should come up with yet he is wildly classping at staws. His reputation is over and he has yet to see it. Sad!:(
ROFLMAO
Like the head of NCAR and CRU
Not like they didn’t have any worldwide significance, right?
Also not to mention that a prominent TV show devoted time to them to spread the oncoming ice age message, and that global communication channels since then have exploded in size.
..and many alarmists call many skeptics “deniers”. Ironic, much?
Dave,
a show prominent for discussing space ships in south america and Sasquatch. The height of scientific respectability at the time.
No matter how much evidence you are presented, you always slip back into ignorance http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/ncar-director-1974-warned-of-global-cooling-and-resultant-crop-losses/ http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/cru-director-predicted-an-ice-age-in-1972/
Steve reread my comment,
and please tell me and Dave about all the TV shows that promoted a new ice age that did not have Spock as a narrator.
Straw man
Dave, are you going to let Steve get away with saying you are using a straw man argument.
of course Steve would never portray a few examples as being a consensus would he, and then argue that all scientists believed this when in fact every scientist acknowledges that there were some who did believe it was possible or even likely. Some like Schneider very explicitly explained their reasoning and acknowledged that their scenario was not accurate because of the decrease in aerosols ( that Steve denies had any effect)
The previous global warming and cooling scares pale into comparison with the current scare (think instant modern communication). However, they did exist:
“Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but cant decide weather we face an ice age or warming”
http://www.mrc.org/bmi/reports/2010/Fire_and_Ice_Executive_Summary.html
http://www.mrc.org/bmi/reports/2010/Fire_and_Ice.html
1300 to the present
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory.htm
Global cooling fears Of the past – New ice age
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945635,00.html
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko&feature=player_embedded
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640
(150 of global warming and cooling fears)
http://www.almanac.com/sites/new.almanac.com/files/1895_cvr1_0.png
(1895-2008 warming and cooling fears)
http://anotherviewonclimate.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/time-announces-approaching-ice-age/
(numerous new ice-age articles from 1970s)
James Hansen and Rasool ice age using model 1971 1970s
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;173/3992/138
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0033-5894(72)90047-6
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/12/scientists-considered-pouring-soot-over.html
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/csmonitor_historic/access/264940572.html?dids=264940572:264940572&FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:AI&date=Sep+23%2C+1972&author=&pub=Christian+Science+Monitor&desc=British+climate+expert+predicts+new+Ice+Age&pqatl=google
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/684637452.html?dids=684637452:684637452&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Sep+24%2C+1972&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Scientist+Sees+Chilling+Signs+of+New+Ice+Age&pqatl=google
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/685244192.html?dids=685244192:685244192&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Oct+24%2C+1971&author=GEORGE+GETZE&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=New+Ice+Age+Coming—It%27s+Already+Getting+Colder&pqatl=google
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/611341812.html?dids=611341812:611341812&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Mar+02%2C+1975&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=B-r-r-r-r%3A+New+Ice+Age+on+way+soon%3F&pqatl=google
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/611566792.html?dids=611566792:611566792&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Apr+13%2C+1975&author=Joel+Shurkin&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=The+Ice+Age+cometh%3A+the+system+that+controls+our+climate&pqatl=google
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/611645872.html?dids=611645872:611645872&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Oct+30%2C+1974&author=Ronald+Yates&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Ice+Age%2C+worse+food+crisis+seen&pqatl=google
I don’t know how this current scare has gained such traction. There are no trends in extreme weather events even after decades of global warming / now flat.
The weather is not getting wilder.
“Fluctuations in some climate parameters”
“Here we report results on those parameters of which we have had experience during the last few years: Global surface temperature, Cloud Cover and the MODIS Liquid Cloud Fraction. In no case we have found indications that fluctuations of these parameters have increased with time.”
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.01.021
“The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder”
“Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.””
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html
“The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/full
Tony! Its good to see you here again! I dislike disputing your assertions, but……..
You stated, “……this was no global cooling scare…….” I believe Steve has presented enough evidence that we can state there was a “scare” to the public about a globe cooling. You know, and I know, Steve has several posts in this regard. Was it the scientific “consensus”? I’ve no idea. It certainly was portrayed as such in my elementary science classes. Oddly, this only occurred to children that grew up to be skeptics of the consensus global warming theory. Mass hallucination?
Tony, I’m tired of this delusion. I was told we were heading to the next ice age soon, and it was mankind that was accelerating our impending doom. I was told this when I was 9, 10, 11, and 12 years old. By the time I was 13 I knew they were FOS. Turns out I’m not the only one. Apparently, only conservatives were subject to the attempt of mass manipulation. Liberals don’t have this recollection.
Its sad and sick.
I would also state, as I’ve stated before, I’m a product of the military. I went to 3 different school districts during that time-span. One in an entirely different country. Perhaps, it was simply the leftist military pushing such an agenda.
Time and Newsweek wrote what the experts told them.
I know that, you know that, and if Tony was honest with himself, he’d know that.
It pisses me off. People are going to play pretend it didn’t happen? Yeh, fine. I was half-way around the world and back twice and the story was the same. Now, we’re going to pretend that didn’t happen? Apparently that’s just a contrivance of people that actually lived through the scares of the 60s and 70s. Someone is actually tell me what I was told back then. Nope. Turns out I was there, and I remember.
Steve,
How often?
SUYTS. I went to 4 different schools in the late 60’s to mid 70’s. I vaguely remember some talk about this and I was VERY into science at the time.
I found 3 Time covers with global cooling on them from 74-79. So in 5 years over 200 magazines three focused on global cooling. this is indeed more than an isolated publishing whim, but it is no bandwagon, and there was no consensus among scientists at all. Whoops sorry, one of those was about conservation efforts not global cooling. so it is only two issues.
h\Here is the Nature evaluation, which squares fairly well (not exactly) with my recollection and understanding.
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/10/the_great_global_cooling_myth.html.
the wikipedia entry also seems accurate to me.
Steve brought up the term straw man.
Same mentality that the Holocaust didn’t happen.
lol, ok, I’m almost literate. But that doesn’t negate the fact that I was there, and I remember. Those people that wish to revise history…… there isn’t any amount of pain that would be too much for them.
The intentional harm they wish to do to humanity justifies that thought.
Steve,
the mentality that the holocaust didn;t happen is contradicted by many thousands of eye witnesses, many photographs and the actual internal records of the nazi’s themselves.
The instances you have brought up are NOT denied. the fact that there are so few articles , and the scientific literature shows a divergence of opinion, with a significant number of those predicting cooling acknowledging GHE, just offset by aerosols gives even less credence to your position that there was anything like a consensus compared to the current established view.
it is indeed a perfect example of a straw man argument.
As to SUYTS’ recollection. I have never known him to lie, but as I have said before it is not consistent with my recollection and the media and literature history do not support the view that there was a widespread fear of a new ice age. A few articles out of the hundreds every year do not constitute fear mongering by any definition.
A divergence of opinion? How unusual. Not everyone agreed.
SUYTS,
Well then point out where the nature and wikipedia entries are revising history. What scientific articles are they ignoring, show where any individual media source had multiple articles reinforcing this belief.
the us of the Spock TV show is repeated many times and it is a joke. Pleas point out to me a statistically significant degree of fear mongering. regarding this issue. Steve has posted a number of individual articles in newspapers, but again when added up and compared to the sum total of all articles in all the media, I can’t see it being more than miniscule.
that is NOT denying that they existed, but denying that there was a bandwagon.
TONY, apparently, your recollection is different than mine. It could be that less attention was paid to the eminent doom of global cooling than the escaped doom of fascism in your class rooms. That may be why you don’t recollect the climate catastrophe that we were cursed by. I find it peculiar that only realists remember this occurrence. I’ve no knowledge as to how old you are, and I don’t care. I know people my age were subject to such doom and gloom as our children are today. I take great umbrage to people that want to pretend such events didn’t occur then and don’t occur now. It’s baseless and sadistic
The only purpose is towards a furtherance of a political agenda.
Couldn’t have said it any better suyts
I forgot floods. No trend up. 🙂 When are the climate bandits going to give up???
http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1128/
I think Hansen’s been studying the aerosols a little too closely…..He should stick to weed, or peyote like the other climate scientists.
Japan (for example) had 10% more bright sunshine at weather stations in 2000 than in 1900. The air was cleaner.
It matches up nicely with a small increase in temperature in Japan.
10% more bright sunshine can explain ALL 20th century warming. CO2 is irrelevant.
Tony, my apologies. I misstated. I should have said, “Don’t tell me what I was told. I was there. From Georgia to BK Germany, to El Paso Texas, I know what I was told. The lying, political agenda bitches told me exactly what I’ve stated. I’ve forgotten much, but I haven’t forgotten what I was told. Nor has millions of others that actually cared to pay attention. Anal? Maybe, but true nonetheless.