< 1 2
 
   
 

Beyond Unforgivable

 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3228
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
10 November 2019 12:39
 
Skipshot - 10 November 2019 11:17 AM

Great. . . now Celal compares science to religion.  Stick to bashing Islam, Celal.  You know nothing of science if you think it is a political conspiracy.

Nice spin!  Actually all I’m saying is this point, right here.

In the mid-1970s Lowell Ponte provided extensive data and quoted top climate scientists to prove.. GLOBAL COOLING!  Are you too young to remember the hysteria about the Global Cooling? Please ask yourself how is it that this apocalyptic racket is NOT the same; only now the scam artists led by Al Gore are selling the opposite panic formula, hoping for gullible people like you with very short memories.

I suspect you aren’t much of a reader but here it is anyway ...

https://www.amazon.com/Cooling-Has-Next-Already-Begun/dp/013172312X

 

 

[ Edited: 10 November 2019 12:42 by Celal]
Image Attachments
 
Capture.JPG
 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
10 November 2019 14:48
 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

The global cooling myth

Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970’s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970’s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970’s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970’s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.

George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”. The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:


Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).

The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call “imminent” (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.

Will also quotes “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn’t. The piece isn’t from “Science”; it’s from “Science News”. There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigous journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.

The Hays paper above is the most notable example of the “ice age” strand. Indeed, its a very important paper in the history of climate, linking observed cycles in ocean sediment cores to orbital forcing periodicities. Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem). There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.

Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn’t know enough to make predictions. From the “Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations”, we find that they said we should:
1.Establish National climatic research program
2.Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
3.Develope Climatic index monitoring program
4.Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
5.Adoption and development of International climatic research program
6.Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network

Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.

Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:
1.The cooling trend from the 40’s to the 70’s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
2.Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
3.Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.

Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.

Ron

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
10 November 2019 14:54
 

And this…

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.

Mainstream Media

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article “The Cooling World” that suggested cooling “may portend a drastic decline for food production.”


“Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:


“When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”

Peer-Reviewed Literature

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Scientific Consensus

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…”

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: “...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring… It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities… The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus…
•National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
•Environmental Protection Agency
•NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies
•American Geophysical Union
•American Institute of Physics
•National Center for Atmospheric Research
•American Meteorological Society
•The Royal Society of the UK
•Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
•American Association for the Advancement of Science

Reasoning Behind Cooling Predictions

Quite often, the justification for the few global cooling predictions in the 1970s is overlooked.  Probably the most famous such prediction was Rasool and Schneider (1971):


“An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K.”

Yes, their global cooling projection was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration.  This wasn’t an entirely unrealistic scenario - after all, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were accelerating quite rapidly up until the early 1970s (Figure 2).  These emissions caused various environmental problems, and as a result, a number of countries, including the USA, enacted SO2 limits through Clean Air Acts.  As a result, not only did atmospheric aerosol concentrations not quadruple, they declined starting in the late 1970s:
Similarly, if we now limit CO2 emissions, we can also eventually get global warming under control.

Summary

So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading.  Additionally, we reduced the SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling.  The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2 emissions causing global warming.

Ron

 

 

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  755
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
10 November 2019 18:13
 

Rasool and Schneider, 1971
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ra00600k.html

Abstract:
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°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.


So even the scientists examining the cooling effects of aerosols recognized the warming effects of CO2.

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9804
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
10 November 2019 19:30
 
Celal - 10 November 2019 12:39 PM
Skipshot - 10 November 2019 11:17 AM

Great. . . now Celal compares science to religion.  Stick to bashing Islam, Celal.  You know nothing of science if you think it is a political conspiracy.

Nice spin!  Actually all I’m saying is this point, right here.

In the mid-1970s Lowell Ponte provided extensive data and quoted top climate scientists to prove.. GLOBAL COOLING!  Are you too young to remember the hysteria about the Global Cooling? Please ask yourself how is it that this apocalyptic racket is NOT the same; only now the scam artists led by Al Gore are selling the opposite panic formula, hoping for gullible people like you with very short memories.

I suspect you aren’t much of a reader but here it is anyway ...

https://www.amazon.com/Cooling-Has-Next-Already-Begun/dp/013172312X

 

One source is not enough, and you know it. Provide multiple peer reviewed studies in proper scientific journals, not hysterical untrained journalists misrepresenting a misreading of an abstract which you have cherry-picked.  This is garbage.

Also, you need to stop living in the past and provide current peer reviewed data from multiple valid scientific community sources directly contradicting the current data.  Not maybes and sort ofs.  For now you are a fraud and partisan political hack throwing shit and hoping something sticks as an attempt to discredit science for political reasons, not scientific ones.  Science is not based on belief; it is based on data-driven knowledge and it really does not care what you believe.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  755
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
11 November 2019 05:56
 

That book reminds me of this documentary “In Search Of: The Coming Ice Age”
https://youtu.be/L_861us8D9M

If you like that the series also covered Atlantis (https://youtu.be/jCDD76JXLKk ), Bigfoot (https://youtu.be/ppJBaUlEiaQ ) and the lost treasures of the Inca (https://youtu.be/NKMN509cOJQ).

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8907
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
11 November 2019 11:13
 

Trump’s calling human-caused global warming a Chinese hoax, is one of his many appeals to American populists, isolationists, and religious fundamentalists.  His denial of climate science in the face of overwhelming evidence is ignominy in the 3rd degree.  Let us count the ways Trump’s actions will hasten the planet toward incalculable loss, suffering, and death.

quote:  “Climate change is one of the biggest threats to global health,” Ryan said. “There are many more vector-borne diseases out there that are temperature sensitive.” Ryan also cautioned that mosquitoes, ticks, bark beetles, and invasive fungus threaten animals and plants as well as human health, and climate change is making many of them worse.”

ignominy n  2.  disgraceful or dishonorable conduct, quality, or action.  Ignominy stresses the almost unendurable contemptibility or despicableness of the disgrace.

 
 
 < 1 2