70s global cooling consensus a myth

[Mayabird]

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s

THE COLDEST ON RECORD

Average temperatures in the coldest U.S. winters since 1895, three of which occurred in the 1970s:
Degrees Fahrenheit
1978-79 27.28
1935-36 28.62
1898-99 28.76
1909-10 29.07
1904-05 29.48
1928-29 29.63
1977-78 29.69
1916-17 29.92
1917-18 29.92
1911-12 30.25
1976-77 30.66

Source: National Climatic Data Center

By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
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.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"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."

"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report.

Scientific reports in the past decade, most notably the U.N. panel's Nobel Prize-winning efforts, have warned that human activities are warming the planet by increasing the release of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases into the atmosphere.

Skeptics have argued that climate change is cyclical, not fueled by the burning of fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas. Peterson notes in the study that concerns over the frigid 1970s subsequently became representative of scientific division over global warming.

That was an unusually cold decade, especially the later years, across the Northern Hemisphere. In the USA, the winters of 1977-79 were three of the 11 coldest since the recording of temperatures began in the 1890s, according to climate center data. The winter of 1978-79 remains the coldest on record in the USA.

Just as it's hard for people today to think much about global warming in the dead of winter, it was also hard for the public – and the media – to focus on a warming world, while at the same time enduring some of the coldest winters on record.

However, as Peterson notes in the paper, "even cursory review of the news media coverage of the issue reveals that, just as there was no consensus at the time among scientists, so was there also no consensus among journalists."

Some have doubts about the new survey. "The paper does not place the late '70s in its climatic context," says Pat Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

"The temperature records we had at the time showed a very sharp cooling from the mid-'40s to the mid-'70s," Michaels says. "And scientists attempted to explain that as a consequence of the pollution that was preventing solar radiation from reaching the surface.

"At the time, scientists thought the cooling effect of pollution was greater than the warming effect of carbon dioxide," Michaels adds. "They were attempting to explain the dramatic cooling of the '70s."

But Robert Henson, a writer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and author of The Rough Guide to Climate Change, says: "This is an important part of science history, and Peterson and his co-authors have done a great job of excavating it.

"People have long claimed that scientists in the 1970s were convinced a new ice age was imminent. But in fact, many researchers at the time were already more concerned about the long-term risks of global warming."

Along with Peterson, the study was also authored written by William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal. The research will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Link

[Darth Wong]

The kind of people who talk about the "global cooling" consensus of the 1970s are not the kind of people who particularly care whether it's true. They're ideologues. The last time I argued with one of these morons, I asked him point-blank for his evidence that there was ever such a consensus, and he simply ignored my demand and repeated himself.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The original Earth Day had a bunch of speakers claiming that the Earth was headed for a new ice age. They weren't scientists; they were Greenist ideologues, and that's where the "consensus" about global cooling comes from; not science, but environmentalist advocates of the 1970s.

[Darth Servo]

The kind of people who talk about the "global cooling" consensus of the 1970s are not the kind of people who particularly care whether it's true. They're ideologues. The last time I argued with one of these morons, I asked him point-blank for his evidence that there was ever such a consensus, and he simply ignored my demand and repeated himself.

That was certainly the attitude of the ID moron on ST.com (Kosh 131)who kept trying to use "global cooling" as proof that nothing in science can be trusted.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It's nice the media covered this, but to anyone who truly knew their science here (and history), it's simply reaffirmation of beliefs backed by solid fact since the '70s. When you see people still claiming a volcano puts out more CO2 and CO2 like GHGs than humanity has ever produced since industrialisation, it becomes a simple game of who can counter logic with the most poorly misrepresented or misunderstood scientific facts they can find off a blog.

[WesFox13]

*Sigh* Man, my dad refers to the whole "Global Cooling" thing too often whenever he hears anything about Global Warming. Ah well, at least I know that it's nothing more than a myth and it doesn't hold any water.

[Xon]

"Global Climate Change" is vastly more accurate than "Global Warming".

Too many morons see just the "warming" out of "global warming" and think it means that all temperatures, especially in their area, are rising instead of the average temperature increasing.

[JBG]

"Too many morons see just the "warming" out of "global warming" and think it means that all temperatures, especially in their area, are rising instead of the average temperature increasing."

I know that it has been hot and dry in WA but it has been bloody cold in Sydney. It is not that unusual to have a hot dry summer in WA but most unusual in Sydney. There has not been one night in February where my doona was thrown off the bed. Spring was warmer!!

The non-morons therefore should be looking at "global" temperatures. Over the last decade the temperature has fallen by as much as it rose in the preceding 100 or so years. On a global basis.

The problem with "global cooling" or "global warming" is that the public debate is hi-jacked by alarmists with agendas, generally anti-west and anti- capitalist and anti-technology. Or by pure BS like Al Gore's film. Every time I hear, with respect to "global warming", of scientific consensus I enquire as to the basis for that statement but am never answered with references to any actual science. The best I get is the IPCC but then again no-one ever seems to know about the issues concerning that report.

What first got my goat was the religious/moralistic tone of GW advocates. If you have simple, solid facts to back you up you don't need that sort of rhetoric. But it has got worse as the science/reality has steadfastly continued to fail to back up some of the more common alarmist scenarios ( eg those from Gore or Flannery ).

The only permanence with climate is change.

Jonathan

[Darth Wong]

The non-morons therefore should be looking at "global" temperatures. Over the last decade the temperature has fallen by as much as it rose in the preceding 100 or so years. On a global basis.

Source?

The problem with "global cooling" or "global warming" is that the public debate is hi-jacked by alarmists with agendas, generally anti-west and anti- capitalist and anti-technology. Or by pure BS like Al Gore's film. Every time I hear, with respect to "global warming", of scientific consensus I enquire as to the basis for that statement but am never answered with references to any actual science.

The carbon-dating of atmospheric CO2 isn't scientific enough for you? What sort of evidence would you require in order to accept human-induced greenhouse gas increases?

The best I get is the IPCC but then again no-one ever seems to know about the issues concerning that report.

And what precisely are the issues concerning that report which might somehow imply that all of its conclusions are completely wrong?

What first got my goat was the religious/moralistic tone of GW advocates. If you have simple, solid facts to back you up you don't need that sort of rhetoric. But it has got worse as the science/reality has steadfastly continued to fail to back up some of the more common alarmist scenarios ( eg those from Gore or Flannery ).

So you claim the science is weak, but instead of going after the actual scientists, you go after media personalities instead. Interesting.

The only permanence with climate is change.

Jonathan

And death, in case you never noticed what usually happens during major climate shifts in the past. Major loss of life and species die-offs.

[Patrick Degan]

The non-morons therefore should be looking at "global" temperatures. Over the last decade the temperature has fallen by as much as it rose in the preceding 100 or so years. On a global basis.

The problem with "global cooling" or "global warming" is that the public debate is hi-jacked by alarmists with agendas, generally anti-west and anti- capitalist and anti-technology. Or by pure BS like Al Gore's film. Every time I hear, with respect to "global warming", of scientific consensus I enquire as to the basis for that statement but am never answered with references to any actual science. The best I get is the IPCC but then again no-one ever seems to know about the issues concerning that report.

What first got my goat was the religious/moralistic tone of GW advocates. If you have simple, solid facts to back you up you don't need that sort of rhetoric. But it has got worse as the science/reality has steadfastly continued to fail to back up some of the more common alarmist scenarios ( eg those from Gore or Flannery ).

Uh huh. Tell us, why is the North Pole melting?

[Elfdart]

About a year ago I asked whether any scientists were actually predicting a global cool-down back in the 1970s. The whole thing is a straw man and urban legend rolled into one.

[Surlethe]

The non-morons therefore should be looking at "global" temperatures. Over the last decade the temperature has fallen by as much as it rose in the preceding 100 or so years. On a global basis.

Really?

The problem with "global cooling" or "global warming" is that the public debate is hi-jacked by alarmists with agendas, generally anti-west and anti- capitalist and anti-technology. Or by pure BS like Al Gore's film. Every time I hear, with respect to "global warming", of scientific consensus I enquire as to the basis for that statement but am never answered with references to any actual science. The best I get is the IPCC but then again no-one ever seems to know about the issues concerning that report.

... such as?

What first got my goat was the religious/moralistic tone of GW advocates. If you have simple, solid facts to back you up you don't need that sort of rhetoric. But it has got worse as the science/reality has steadfastly continued to fail to back up some of the more common alarmist scenarios ( eg those from Gore or Flannery ).

Actually, you often do need that sort of rhetoric. Consider what's happened to evolution: because of creationist rhetoric, evolution enjoys the full support of only 55% of Americans, even though it has 100% of the facts on its side.

The only permanence with climate is change.

Jonathan

Yes, very slow change. Not this sort of rapid warming, which is faster than anything since the K-T event or the Cambrian extinction.

[JBG]

Many thanks for the replies. I will marshall sources!!

A question though first. Have you actually checked the latest ice for the Arctic? Sea ice growth is at recent record proportions. The Antarctic has its thickest ice and snow covering for quite some years. In may parts of the world this has been the coldest winter or indeed the coldest summer for some time.

Looks like I have pushed my snout into a hornets nest!! That is all the better as these issues must be investigated on a scientific basis. They are too important to be left to idealogues such as Mr Gore. I'll be back soon.

Jonathan

[Guardsman Bass]

Many thanks for the replies. I will marshall sources!!

A question though first. Have you actually checked the latest ice for the Arctic? Sea ice growth is at recent record proportions. The Antarctic has its thickest ice and snow covering for quite some years. In may parts of the world this has been the coldest winter or indeed the coldest summer for some time.

Are you categorizing that as a long term trend for Arctic sea ice, or simply a present one? The sea ice does fluctuate in cover depending on the season, so it would make sense that it would be larger than normal in a cold year for the Northern Hemisphere. As for the Antarctic snow, this is what the climate scientists are actually predicting for Antarctica, in particular the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet. It's hardly some dazzling refutation.

And, once again, keep in mind that a single cold year does not a trend make. Provide some actual evidence of a cooling trend before spouting off.

Looks like I have pushed my snout into a hornets nest!! That is all the better as these issues must be investigated on a scientific basis. They are too important to be left to idealogues such as Mr Gore. I'll be back soon.

Jonathan

It's altogether funny that you would argue that it needs to be investigated in a scientific basis while in the same paragraph launching yet another snub at Gore, who has never claimed to be a scientific authority on Global Warming, only an advocate of solutions to what is presently defined as the problem. You wouldn't happen to be a libertarian, would you?

[Surlethe]

Many thanks for the replies. I will marshall sources!!

Get to it.

A question though first. Have you actually checked the latest ice for the Arctic? Sea ice growth is at recent record proportions.

I'm not sure where you get this data; Arctic sea ice has been declining at approximately 8.5%/decade. Of course, you're trying to use a regional phenomenon to disprove global warming, which means you're indulging in a red herring.

The Antarctic has its thickest ice and snow covering for quite some years. In may parts of the world this has been the coldest winter or indeed the coldest summer for some time.

First, a regional phenomenon is not relevant to whether global warming is occuring. Second, we expect exactly this result: as climates warm, they tend to precipitate more, and this precipitation would result in a thickening ice sheet. Third, because there is more land in the northern hemisphere, we expect global warming to have a disproportionate effect north of the equator. Fourth, the northernmost Antarctic ice sheets have nonetheless been melting.

Looks like I have pushed my snout into a hornets nest!! That is all the better as these issues must be investigated on a scientific basis. They are too important to be left to idealogues such as Mr Gore. I'll be back soon.

Jonathan

Mr Gore has never claimed to be part of the scientific investigation.

[(name here)]

you know, i've never quite understood why a gobal tempature rise of no more than three degrees is predicted to have such severe effects. i know that it is starting and having an effect, but not why. it sounds like the global cooling scare was started by major media exaggerating facts, and was widly belived because most people don't read scientific journals. on a possibly somewhat off-topic note, the fall of the colorado river's water level is not caused exclusively by global warming, but is simply the end of a wet centry, and analysis of tree rings indicates that two massive droughts occured during the medievel period.

[The Vortex Empire]

If I remember correctly, a temperature change of 3-6 degrees started and ended the last Ice Age, so don't say it's not much.

[Guardsman Bass]

you know, i've never quite understood why a gobal tempature rise of no more than three degrees is predicted to have such severe effects. i know that it is starting and having an effect, but not why. it sounds like the global cooling scare was started by major media exaggerating facts, and was widly belived because most people don't read scientific journals. on a possibly somewhat off-topic note, the fall of the colorado river's water level is not caused exclusively by global warming, but is simply the end of a wet centry, and analysis of tree rings indicates that two massive droughts occured during the medievel period.

That three degree rise is not uniform across the globe. Certain areas will have a smaller temperature rise due to climactic factors, while others (the Arctic) will have it much, much worse, especially in winter. Plus, a temperature rise can have rather interesting side-effects once it starts messing around with other natural processes.