1972 : CRU Director Predicted A New Ice Age

9 Responses to 1972 : CRU Director Predicted A New Ice Age

1. Dave N says:

   February 8, 2013 at 6:09 am

   “So some obscure nobody said it; that’s hardly a consensus”.

   I’m practicing channeling Appell. How am I doing?

   Reply
   • Jiri D says:

     February 10, 2013 at 5:47 am

     Well Dave, they say that ignorance is bliss. You might want to ask Dr. Tim Ball who Hubert Lamb was. But you probably don’t know who Dr. Ball is either.

     Reply
     • Jiri D says:

       February 10, 2013 at 5:50 am

       Then again, it might have been an attemp at sarcasm. If that is the case, my appologies.

       Reply
2. Traitor in Chief says:

   February 8, 2013 at 8:00 am

   Many of today’s climate kooks showed brief signs of rational thought in the past. Many others know full well they’re lying thru their teeth today. Nothing that a good Caning couldn’t correct.

   Reply
3. Juergen Uhlemann says:

   February 8, 2013 at 9:56 am

   There will be another ice age if the mechanic that caused the last ice ages is still working as before. Will we slip into a little ice age or a big ice age is not clear right now, but the solar cycle change is indicating at least a cooling like in the 70’s, if you feel optimistic. I remember the 70’s and somehow, I feel that we are getting there.

   I think that the prediction of Habibullo I. Abdussamatov is more a realistic view. Just wait how the 24th solar cycle turns out and if his prediction is fitting the reality.

   Will we see it in our life time is first of all a age question. Secondly, I remember a scientist saying that the start of an ice age in the ice core data could not be predicted. The reason is that the temperature didn’t show (real) a trend. It got warmer and colder in cycles and you couldn’t see where it is heading.

   Reply
4. Ira says:

   February 8, 2013 at 3:42 pm

   also worth noting in the lower right corner of of the article — I thought that kind of violent weather was a recent development due to rising CO2 in the arctic

   Reply
5. Rosco says:

   February 8, 2013 at 10:12 pm

   What is really interesting is the total lack of any reference to the “greenhouse effect in this or any other articles of the day.

   The “greenhouse effect” was rejcted and dismissed as “science” shortly after its formal proposal.

   It took a fake stunt resulting in a room full of people who had probably never worked a day in their life sweating while listening to the new Messiah preach fire and damnation from the pulpit.

   That stunt seems to work every time ??

   Reply
6. Prince Charles The Wise says:

   February 10, 2013 at 7:19 am

   I am sure that is the only error this university’s faculty has ever made prognostic wise.

   Reply
7. Frederick Colbourne says:

   October 27, 2013 at 9:18 am

   I have not checked but from memory, the news item seems to be a reference the first edition of Lamb’s major book, written before he set up the Climate Research Unit.

   In the 2nd edition Lamb added a chapter supporting AGW. He seems to have done a complete turnaround from showing that natural cycles of warming and cooling had occurred in the past to belief in secular climate change. How else would he get financial backing for the CRU?

   As for the timing of the end of the end of this inter-glacial period, the technology was not available in those days to reveal the extraordinary length of MIS-11. Nor had André Berger done his calculations to suggest that the current inter-glacial period may last as long as MIS-11, about 50,000 years rather than the usual 20,000 years.

   Reply