Global cooling . The climate trend orthodoxy of the 1970s

[}IknowurbutwhatamI{]

Before today's scientists started predicting catastrophe due to global warming, there were scientists who were predicting catastrophe due to global cooling. And that was just thirty years ago!.
The media hacks and pseudoscientists of the day were very busy predicting a doom and gloom scenario that never happened

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000."
-- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

"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)

Then things got warmer, and the scientists jumped on board the "global warming" hysteria bandwagon.

[cyberianpan]

Aaah but in the good old 1970's

-the naturally conservative & backward were still banging on about sex
-those who were scared of loss of control over society still had socialism to hope for

But now:

The sex battle was lost & socialism fizzled out so the anxious control freaks - a mixture of puritanical luddites & failed hariy lefties have found a new banner to gather under.

Global Climate Change: we will control !

cYp

[Coles]

What an obscure topic to dredge from rubbish bin of history! Are you aware that despite making the pages of certain publications, this hypothesis never had significant scientific support?

Unlike Global Warming.

The consensus position of the climate science community was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise of 9 cm to 88 cm, excluding "uncertainty relating to ice dynamical changes in the West Antarctic ice sheet". On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

-Wikipedia

[Barra Roantree]

The man who came up with the original global cool hypothesis was an unknown who later retracted his theory. There was a good article in the New Scientist a while ago.

Find a peer reviewed study which says global warming is a false "hysteria bandwagon". Go on.

And read this while you're at it. There's much more responses to this and any of the other fake claims like "we should be worried about global cooling, not warming".

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

[Free Speach]

In the 4 decades up to the 1970's it is true that there was a decline in global temperatures.
However this can be explained by global dimming.
This was where due to the level of polluting particles in the athmosphere that the suns rays were deflected and caused a dimming of temperature.
With cleaner power stations, industry, smokeless fuel in cities, the level of particles in the athmosphere due to pollution has decreased. This reduced the global dimming effect causing the true effect of global warming to take over.
We could pollute the athmosphere to an unprecedented degree to hide global warming again but I think the people who would die of respiratory diseases etc would not aggree.
The solution is to reduce carbon emmissions rather than further polute the earth to try and hide the effect of global warming.

[sackville]

Before today's scientists started predicting catastrophe due to global warming, there were scientists who were predicting catastrophe due to global cooling. And that was just thirty years ago!.
The media hacks and pseudoscientists of the day were very busy predicting a doom and gloom scenario that never happened

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000."
-- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

"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)

Then things got warmer, and the scientists jumped on board the "global warming" hysteria bandwagon.

very interesting post - interesting too how it never seems to be mentioned by the latter day eco-clergy

What an obscure topic to dredge from rubbish bin of history!

(for obscure read embarrassing )

Are you aware that despite making the pages of certain publications, this hypothesis never had significant scientific support?

or significant political support -?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

:
24 January 2005 at 10:23 AM

Here is my issue with complex modeling. I work with a service group that works on Doppler Radars. These are million dollar computer enhanced machines that are fed into other computers that do nothing but compute complex weather models. Their output is read by experienced and trained meteorologists or scientists.

Yesterday my local weather service using the most advanced technology predicted the low for my city would be 27, my own thermometer read 18 degrees last night and there was no wind. The weather service also gave me a 50% chance of precipitation.

How are we supposed to listen to climate scientists and weather models making predictions 10-100 years from now when we can’t get the weather tomorrow right?

I am not a global warming denyer, nor am I a true believer, and I have usually found that the truth lies somewhere in between. Are there any web sites that provides the mathmatical model calculations for Global Warming predictions?

one only has to observe how little dissenting voices are heard in the mass media to see what the powers-that-be really want you to think.

more mass indoctrination

[Coles]

Ah FFS, Sackville.

So 'Global Warming' is a conspiracy theory? Are you even remotely aware of how daft that assertion is?

[sackville]

Ah FFS, Sackville.

So 'Global Warming' is a conspiracy theory? Are you even remotely aware of how daft that assertion is?

oops, i didn't mean to attack your beliefs!

[Coles]

Ah FFS, Sackville.

So 'Global Warming' is a conspiracy theory? Are you even remotely aware of how daft that assertion is?

oops, i didn't mean to attack your beliefs!

My beliefs? Has the fact that there is now a consensus within the climate sciences that global warming is real, is happening, and is attributable to human-kind skipped you by?

Tell us more about this conspiracy? Are there teams of men with blowtorches melting glaciers and ice-sheets around the world? Are they falsifying data at the weather stations? Perhaps they are pretending that extreme weather events are occurring more regularly, and with more intensity? And why? Tell us why these 'eco-clergy' are going to such astonishing lengths to persuade us that our actions can, and are affecting our environment.

[qtman]

Ah FFS, Sackville.

So 'Global Warming' is a conspiracy theory? Are you even remotely aware of how daft that assertion is?

oops, i didn't mean to attack your beliefs!

You know, rather than going around using inane terms like "eco-clergy" maybe you could just present some peer-reviewed evidence to support your claims.

I'm sure the millions of people all over Asia who depend on glacial melt for drinking water would be very grateful.