The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

“A pervasive myth has taken hold in the public consciousness: That there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent.”

 

At least that is according to Thomas Peterson, William Connolley and John Fleck writing in the proceedings of the 20th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, held in New Orleans in January this year.    Their paper goes a long way to dispel that myth while at the same time providing a good overview of the development of current global warming theory including key milestones.

 

It did perhaps all begin with the Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, who in 1896 suggested that by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide global temperature may rise 5-6C.

 

The establishment of the station atop Mauna Loa in the Pacific in 1957 was another key event.  According to Peterson et al by 1965 this data was sufficient to show an unambiguous trend of increasing carbon dioxide and showed an increase that exceeded Arrthenius’s 70-year old estimate. 

 

By 1967 the first seminal modelling results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Team were published concluding that a doubling of carbon dioxide would raise the temperature by 2C.  By 1975 based on new modelling results Wallace Broecker asked “Are we on the brink of pronounced global warming?” in a paper published in the journal Science (Vol 189, pgs 460-463).   

 

So, how did the myth of a consensus on global cooling take hold?

 

According to Peterson et al, when the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arise in contemporary discussion, it is not to citations in the scientific literature but to news and media coverage at that time.  Furthermore they indicate that contemporary quoting of the media articles is often selective and out of context.

 

In their survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1983 Peterson et al found only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating warming.

 

It is a fascinating little paper, have a read:

http://ams.confex.com/ams/88Annual/techprogram/paper_131047.htm

 

[link from Luke Walker]

101 Responses to The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

  1. spangled drongo September 27, 2008 at 2:03 pm #

    Luke,
    Is it true that James Hansen wrote the cooling program for a GCM in the ’70s?

  2. Graeme Bird September 27, 2008 at 2:17 pm #

    “In their survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1983 they found only seven articles indicated cooling compared to 42 indicating warming. ”

    This is a new metric that they’ve pulled out of there air. Scientists looking at themselves. Next it will be scientists looking at meta-studies of scientists doing meta-studies and no-one will get around to doing any work.

    The consensus was there but it was just a matter of when. We’ve had twenty-something long glacial periods in the last three million years. And there was and is no reason to believe that this has changed.

    This is just Connelly and his nutty friends being called on warming stupidity and doing some fancy footwork.

  3. SJT September 27, 2008 at 3:25 pm #

    “Is it true that James Hansen wrote the cooling program for a GCM in the ’70s?”

    I have no idea if he did or he didn’t, but a “Cooling program” doesn’t exist any more than a “CO2 model” does.

  4. Luke September 27, 2008 at 3:28 pm #

    What does a “cooling program” for a GCM mean?

  5. Gordon Robertson September 27, 2008 at 4:33 pm #

    Ummm…let’s see. To ad hom or not to ad hom. Aw, what the heck, let’s ad hom.

    One author, William Connolley, is a contributor to realclimate. He’s a computer programmer who works as a computer modeler. He moonlights at Wikipedia making sure any articles on climate follow the peculiar logic of RC. He talks down his nose at Fred Singer, a real scientist who knows far more about the climate than Connolley will ever dream of knowing.

    Then there’s John Fleck. He’s a science writer for the Albuquerque Journal. That leaves us with Peterson, who seems to be a legitimate meteorologist. Why would he want to put out a paper with a computer programmer and a writer for a newspaper?

    If you go to this URL:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2544

    and insert Petersen in the browser’s ‘find’ facility, it will take you to an interesting bit on a paper Peterson did with Easterling et al. Apparently the NOAA had to withdraw it due to errors.

    Maybe Peterson is a good scientist, I don’t know. I do know that Connolley and RC have an interest in the global cooling thing of the ’70′s going away.

    This paper seems to indicate there was only a few ‘papers’ on global cooling, but they did not check books by scientists or articles by the media, it would seem. In this article Lindzen gives a good account of the history:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

    and states:

    “…the global cooling trend of the 1950s and 1960s led to a minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s. All that was more or less normal scientific debate, although the cooling hysteria had certain striking analogues to the present warming hysteria including books such as The Genesis Strategy by Stephen Schneider and Climate Change and World Affairs by Crispin Tickell…”

    Schneider, of course, is the scientist who suggests it’s OK to lie to the public in order to get them onside with AGW theory.

  6. spangled drongo September 27, 2008 at 6:15 pm #

    “What does a “cooling program” for a GCM mean?”

    As opposed to a warming program.

    Y’know Luke, experimenter’s bias?

  7. cohenite September 27, 2008 at 7:05 pm #

    luke; if your point is that some scientists and most of the msm can be venal, hysterical and disingenuous, then I would agree with you; if, however, your point is that just because a case can be made that the cooling earth scenario was a beat up then, because those allegedly doing the beating up are critical of AGW, they must also be wrong about AGW, I would say that was a beat up.

  8. Louis Hissink September 27, 2008 at 7:14 pm #

    What Luke does not stress is the fact that every AGW climate model assumes asa starting point that doubling CO2 causes 2-5 degrees rise in global mean temperature. Factors are then applied to offset this inbuilt bias.

    AGW is simply a technically sophisticated belief for which an enormous amount of evidence has been manufactured.

  9. Neville September 27, 2008 at 7:47 pm #

    What we do know is that as co2 increases it sometimes cools for decades and then warms for decades.
    Like warming from 1900 to 1944, then cooling to 1977, then warming to 1998 and cooling from 1998 to 2008.
    Gee it’s a bit inconsistent this co2 forcing business isn’t it, up down, up down, up down.
    Makes one think that the climate has a will of its own almost and can change direction whatever and whenever it chooses.
    Meanwhile up to this latest cool phase we’ve only recovered .7c from the LIA and been bombarded with record solar radiation in the last 11,000 years.
    Once again no hot spot and no positive feedback to co2 plus the above shows co2 to be a real BUMMER to the fantasists and fanatics of AGW.
    It’s a multi billion dollar CON and not even a good con, because its so easy to to pull apart and disprove.

  10. Luke September 27, 2008 at 8:05 pm #

    “the fact that every AGW climate model assumes asa starting point that doubling CO2 causes 2-5 degrees rise in global mean temperature” – err no it doesn’t actually

  11. Luke September 27, 2008 at 8:19 pm #

    Not really a beatup – aerosol cooling got some consideration as a long term problem and it was quickly worked through that long term greenhouse forcing was considered much more an issue. Most of the material normally quoted is Newsweek or Tim magazine. If you had hundreds of journal papers or an IPCC size report you would be entitled to bang on about.

    And Gordon you can ah hom as much as you’d like – we’d hardly expect the Lavoisier Society to write such an article now would we? Indeed Connolly has been critical of Hansen from time to time. At least these guys have got the good taste not to go with just anything. Connolly said over his co-authored paper about the sizeable mid-tropospheric warming over the Antarctic that it would be premature to assume an anthropogenic influence. RC was quick to hose down the conveyor slow-down data of a few years ago.

    Sceptics on the other hand seem in the main prepared to put up with any old nonsense as long as it’s on side. e.g. Archibald’s stuff.

  12. Louis Hissink September 27, 2008 at 8:27 pm #

    Luke

    Whatever the climate sensity is, the GCM’s assume as the primary driver that increasing CO2 causes a rise in temperature to which feed backs, negative or positive, are applied.

    This is basically the simple basis of any AGW climate model.

    So to counter this one would need to see the design of the various models.

    Avaliable?

  13. NT September 27, 2008 at 8:35 pm #

    Hansen has only ever written about Global Warming. Very little published material was written about ‘cooling’ – I am not actually sure of any published work… anyone know of any?

  14. Louis Hissink September 27, 2008 at 9:54 pm #

    (Wonders whether Luke is running around collecting all the Team Fortran code, as well as the more modern ones).

  15. Louis Hissink September 27, 2008 at 10:35 pm #

    NT,

    Do your own homework please, not con us into yours.

  16. John F. Pittman September 27, 2008 at 10:49 pm #

    I like the “peg” part. You know, when based on a work (that was shown to be terminally flawed after its publication) about past temperature reconstructions, the newsies came out with such quotes as 1998 the warmest year, in the warmest decade, in the warmest century of the past millenia. And just as the 1970′s peg came back to haunt them in a decade, the peg of 1998 has come back to haunt them in 2008. Note also the effect of singling out one work or using one flawed work, or in the 1998 cases works who share the same flaw, it is not a concensus. Wait, wait, it was in 1998, just not in 1970. But concensus can’t be wrong can it??

  17. SJT September 27, 2008 at 11:01 pm #

    “Ummm…let’s see. To ad hom or not to ad hom. Aw, what the heck, let’s ad hom.”

    Since that’s all you’ve got, I guess you agree they are right in their claim.

  18. Louis Hissink September 27, 2008 at 11:02 pm #

    John F. Pittman

    Apparently consensus might be wrong – lemmings arguing over AGW while plunging to their destiny seems one such possibility.

  19. Graeme Bird September 28, 2008 at 12:04 am #

    Solid science says that we are still in an icehouse world.

    Find the evidence that says otherwise or accept that there is a four letter word and that you are full of it.

  20. Arnost September 28, 2008 at 12:26 am #

    The thing that is studiously ignored in this piece is the actual rate of cooling from 1940 to the mid 70’s. It was the “consensus” that the Northern Hemisphere had cooled by about 0.8C in this period.

    Figure A.6 from the National Academy of Science 1975 report “Understanding Climatic Change” is I think a very fair summary of the understanding [Northern hemisphere surface temperature from 1880 to 1968. Data from Budyko (1968) updated by Asakura after 1959 (indicated by dashed line on graph)].

    (This is my third post and I’m being eaten by the spam filter so trying to get this through if you want to see the graph paste into your browser and add the http prefix)

    ://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_cooling.jpg

    It may all be very well to trumpet a statistic that there were no published papers that “predicted” a cooling. This may be entirely correct – however, it must be noted that all work published would have included the time honoured disclaimer along the lines published in the NAS report:

    “Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines it’s course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes.”

    Any paper with a disclaimer such as this would immediately go into WM Connolley’s neutral bin… And that’s why there’s only some 50 papers which appear to take a stand.

    It is also noteworthy that the magnitude of this “cooling” is now no longer a matter of current record. It would be interesting to see which temperature records were used to determine the Fig A.6 temperature series, and compare them to the current records.

    cheers

  21. Arnost September 28, 2008 at 12:33 am #

    Just testing:

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_cooling.jpg

  22. Demesure September 28, 2008 at 12:46 am #

    “It would be interesting to see which temperature records were used to determine the Fig A.6 temperature series, and compare them to the current records”
    ———————-
    “Current records”? But which current records, one may ask!
    HadCRUT and GISS are notorious for their revisionism. Not only do they make “ajustements” to warm the present but also to cool the past. Just compare the “official” temperature curves in the IPCC’s TAR and 4AR (graph below). The whole “surface temperature” business is a self serving fraud, a disgrace to modern science.

    http://skyfal.free.fr/uploads/temperature_ipcc.gif

  23. J.Hansford. September 28, 2008 at 12:48 am #

    Luke… I think Arnost has answered your question…..

    Looks like you mob have been caught playing selectively with the data…. Again.

    It would seem most of the papers on cooling have been left off….

    Face it Luke. The newspapers of the era, wouldn’t have been squawking about a global cooling if they hadn’t been encouraged to do so.

    I can’t picture a journalist just springing out of bed one morning thinking….. ” Jeez, I’ll do a piece on Global Cooling today. ”

    They may be inventive…. But they ain’t that inventive. :-)

  24. John F. Pittman September 28, 2008 at 2:01 am #

    Arnost is the 1975 surface temperature graph actually the northern hemisphere as is the HADCRUT? Because the HADCRUT has an absolute del T of 0.37C for the the 1975 paper’s absolute delta T of about 0.7C. Are they actually the same comparison?

  25. Demesure September 28, 2008 at 2:25 am #

    The 1975 NAS report titled “Understanding Climatic Change, A Program for Action” can be found by books.google.com.
    Note the same hubristic call to arms for “action”.
    Those who forget their past error are comdemned to repeat it.

    http://books.google.com/books?hl=fr&id=LzZRAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22understanding+climatic+change%3A+A+program+for+action%22&q=%22understanding+climatic+change%3A+A+program+for+action%22&pgis=1#search

  26. david September 28, 2008 at 5:49 am #

    If Peterson et al. are wrong why don’t you collectively write a reply for peer reviewed publication. I look forward to reading it.

  27. Gordon Robertson September 28, 2008 at 8:00 am #

    Arnost wrote…”…it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes”.

    I find that statement from NAS really interesting because that’s essentially what the IPCC said in TAR as a justification for using the ‘probabilities’ averaged from different computer models to form consensus. By AR4, they had not rescinded that claim, they merely buried it along with the satellite data that revealed the lie in their consensus.

    BTW, Arnost, I have no problem using a link as long as I put it in a new line. That’s true in both Opera and Firefox. Hope you’re not using something technically-challenged, like Internet Explorer.

  28. Gordon Robertson September 28, 2008 at 8:12 am #

    david said…”If Peterson et al. are wrong why don’t you collectively write a reply for peer reviewed publication”.

    Consider what happens with peer review. Einstein submits one of the most important physics papers of all time for peer review and it was not even passed on to the reviewers because the editor thought it would never make it. That was in the day when peer-review was taken seriously. Today, it is a joke. John Christy laughs about it, not knowing if his papers are going to be accepted for review or not.

    Anyway, what should I say? I don’t agree with William Connolley because he supports the rubbish written at RC?

    Hey, wait a minute, you might be onto something. Thanks for the suggestion.

  29. david September 28, 2008 at 8:28 am #

    So the world climate scientists have blocked alternative science over a period of decades. This has prevented all those sceptics from publishing the truth. Next your going to tell me the earth is flat, and Armstrong walked around in a studio in Hollywood.

    If there is all those rejected papers out there, why don’t you round them up and publish them on the web… including with the dates of submission and the reviews from the editors.

    As for Christy, last time I checked he was having no trouble publishing, and indeed recieved one of the highest honours from the American Meteorological Society (http://www.uah.edu/News/sciindex.php).
    Just like your science, your anecdotes have no basis in fact. Problem is, he accepts the greenhouse effect, the enhanced greenhouse effect, and global warming.

  30. Arnost September 28, 2008 at 8:36 am #

    “Arnost is the 1975 surface temperature graph actually the northern hemisphere as is the HADCRUT?”

    That’s the way I read it…

    An article on Climate Change in the Nov 1976 National Geographic showed a graph showing NORTHERN hemisphere temperatures – almost identical for the overlapping period. (Courtesy of William Connolley): :)

    http ://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/DSCN1557-nat-geog-1976_1200x900.JPG

  31. Gordon Robertson September 28, 2008 at 8:44 am #

    Luke…I have an issue with people like Schmidt and Connolley passing themselves off as legitimate atmospheric scientists. They go under the heading of ‘climate scientist’, which means nothing these days. A climate scientist could be a secretary at NOAA.

    This is not something new for me. I have been aware for quite some time of how mathematicians have been passing themselves off as physicists. They seem to think reality is a huge differential equation and they speak of nature having to obey mathematical laws.

    David Bohm, one of the top theoretical physicists, and a guy respected by Einstein, suggested that’s what was partly wrong with modern science. He thought we had lost touch with the real, physical phenomena.

    That’s my problem with Connolley. He is trained as a computer programmer. Obviously he had to learn something about climate science to program the models, but he seems to be handing himself off as an expert on the atmosphere, so much so, that he feels perfectly OK criticizing an expert like Fred Singer.

    It’s fairly obvious to me why Connolley doesn’t like Singer and why activists try so hard to discredit him. It’s not so obvious how people like Connolley got themselves so caught up in their own importance that they think they understand the atmosphere at the same level as Singer, Lindzen, Christy or Spencer.

    Christy laughs about it. He takes satellite data to computer modelers and says, “hey, look, my data is saying there seems to be something wrong with your models”. The modelers are getting mad at him and claiming the models are right and his data is wrong.

    There’s something wrong in science when mathematicians and computer modelers get the same credence as scientists who have spent decades studying the atmosphere. There’s something wrong when the IPCC puts more faith in models than in actual data from satellites.

    RC has been peddling this mathematically-based AGW theory and there are certain inconvenient facts opposing them. One of them was the notion that scientists in the ’70′s formed a consensus that the world was cooling. Who really cares? Only people who are sensitive about such notions would go to all the trouble to write a paper on it. As Lindzen claimed, and he was there, it was typical trade talk.

    The minute I saw your article, I saw Connolley’s name and didn’t want to read it. I pretty well knew what he would be on about and he didn’t disappoint.

  32. Gordon Robertson September 28, 2008 at 8:53 am #

    david said,…re Christy…”Problem is, he accepts the greenhouse effect, the enhanced greenhouse effect, and global warming”.

    So does Lindzen, Michaels, Spencer and Singer, yet they are all discredited by alarmists as being on the take.

    I find Christy to be refreshingly honest. He said that skepticism is a hallmark of science. He also said that CO2 ‘should’ warm the atmosphere but his satellite data was not showing that. In fact, the IPCC agreed in the 2001 TAR assessment as did NAS a bit later. Christy’s statement is incredibly simple: the theory claims the atmosphere is warming due to CO2 emissions, the satellite data is saying it is not.

    Who do you think is right?

  33. Louis Hissink September 28, 2008 at 9:31 am #

    Gordon,

    Apparently there is a crisis in physics – the mathematicians have hijacked it and disconnected physics from reality.

    Astronomy has the same problems but it is unwise to elevate Einstein too high on his pedestal.

    Einstein started it all off with his thought experiments – coming with such bizarre notions as “curved space”. Now we have black holes (the reification of a naked singularity) dark energy, dark matter, and today we are spednign billions trying to find the Higgs boson – a mythical particle to solve the missing mass problem in astronomy.

    To his credit Einstein during his later years realised his theory was wrong and said so but that meant nothing to the mainstream.

    The same thing happened with Alfven and magnetohydrodynamics – something he proposed and thought that magnetic fields could be frozen in plasma, as it were. Alfven quickly realised he was wrong, (this happens when one is a physical experimenter) and told the astronomers this at his 1970 Nobel Price acceptance speech, but they ignored him.

    Nowadays astronomers puzzle over reconnecting magnetic field lines – magnetic reconnection it’s called – not realising that its totally fictitious. They measure magnetic fields in deep space, they measure magnetic fluz ropes, and still have not made the connection with electricity.

    Climate science is stalled in a computerised mathematical virtual world, as is economics I might add, and its these models which for the basis of policy.

    Try as you might, you cannot convince any Keynsian economist that econometrics cannot predict anything. The same mindset is behind climate science – what I call Whig Science.

    In geology the Whigs did the damage 200 years ago when Lyell used geology to unseat the Tories out of parliament in Britain. Oh yes, ostensibly Lyell wrote a geological text, but as some of his biographers noted, Lyell was as devout as his Tory opponents, and had to make his new geology compatible with his religious beliefs. He did that by shifting the creation from 4004 BC to somewhere way back in time by arbitrarily inserting a long period of time. Another Whig scientist was Darwin who then came up with his evolutionary theory to explain biodiversity. Evolution is simply a mechanical explanation for the appearance of life in terms of Lyellian time expansion.

    Notice that Lyell’s explanation is essentially a thought experiment – like Einstein’s – except today its become far more complex with power computers being used to simulate these ideas.

    And behind it is a common mindset – the Whig or, dare I mention the unspeakable, a socialist mindset.

    The reason AGW has been so quickly adopted by the political left is because the political left are not guided by fact but by consensus.

    It’s the age old difference between the Platonists and Aristotellians, and what concerns me is that this difference seems to be hard wired in humans – left brain versus right brain.

  34. Sunsettommy September 28, 2008 at 9:49 am #

    “Who do you think is right?”

    The Empirical data……. of course!

    LOL

  35. SJT September 28, 2008 at 9:56 am #

    “Any paper with a disclaimer such as this would immediately go into WM Connolley’s neutral bin… And that’s why there’s only some 50 papers which appear to take a stand.”

    Good Arnost, you have made a claim. Now could you provide evidence other than your opinion to support this claim?

  36. MartinGAtkins September 28, 2008 at 10:03 am #

    Science 9 July 1971:
    Vol. 173. no. 3992, pp. 138 – 141
    DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.138

    Articles

    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
    S. I. Rasool 1 and S. H. Schneider 1

    1 Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, New York 10025

    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.

    [url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;173/3992/138]Science 9 July
    The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen’s at the National Aeronautics
    and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his
    chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by
    Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

  37. Arnost September 28, 2008 at 10:20 am #

    Ahh, SJT (as usual) does not need to read material from the “authority” – he just “knows” that it’s right…

    May I refer you to the second last paragraph on page 5 of the linked .pdf where the methodology that is used to sort to papers into the various bins is provided:

    “The neutral category in Table 1 includes papers that project no change, that discuss both warming and cooling influences without specifically indicating which are likely to be dominant, or that state not enough is known to make a sound prediction.”

    I specifically bring the last sentence to your attention.

  38. Jan Pompe September 28, 2008 at 10:28 am #

    Louis: “the mathematicians have hijacked it and disconnected physics from reality.”

    Some have, some haven’t and some just keep on trying.

    There would not be a physicist or electrical engineer that does not connect magnetism with moving charged particles IOW electricity. Though I do think some mathematicians might like to try as reality tends to mess up the “beauty of their formulations”.

  39. Louis Hissink September 28, 2008 at 11:03 am #

    Jan,

    You and I know that most physicists and all electrical engineers connect magnetic fields with electricty but the astronomers appear to have a blind spot on this – principally because they believe there is no charge separation in space, and hence spae cannot conduct electricity.

    It’s the electrical engineers like Hannes Alfven, Tony Peratt and Don Scott who are behind the plasma universe theories and who keep telling the astronomers that it’s electricity d’oh.

  40. Jan Pompe September 28, 2008 at 11:23 am #

    Louis: “principally because they believe there is no charge separation in space, and hence spae cannot conduct electricity”

    I think that has more to do with distance between the charges rather than there is no separation. The get a current we need to get net charges moving in the same direction this is hard to do in the wide open spaces. Any way let’s not take this too far off topic.

  41. Louis Hissink September 28, 2008 at 12:03 pm #

    Jan:
    No problemo – but the comment by Martin Atkins – its the Hansen Venus furphy.

    While most seem to think ice ages sort of “appear” what few don’t realise is the associated mass species extinctions which are somewhat hard to explain.

    The ice age which killed the Siberian mammoths for example – these animals just slowly froze to death? Biologically impossible. One account noted that one dead mammoth had lung clots and an erect penis – evidence for death by suffocation. So how on earth do you suffocate an elephant the size of a Mammoth? And herds of them.

    The island of Spitzbergen has fossiled crocodiles – and the implication is that this island was previously, and not so long ago, in a tropical climate.

    OK, given that, how do you get a tropical climate at Spitzbergen at its present latitude. And if you keep it in place, and imagine it is tropical, implying that the temperature is higher, then what of the temperatures of the tropics at the lower latitudes – higher as well? Any evidence for this? Is this plausible? Tropic climate at Spitzbergen and broiling climate in Indonesia?

    Explaining ice ages isn’t as simple as many think it is.

  42. Jan Pompe September 28, 2008 at 1:15 pm #

    Louis: “its the Hansen Venus furphy.”

    Indeed but the ice age is only difficult to explain with Arrhenius theory orbital factors are not a problem. Move closer to the fire you get warmer. But where you have energy output tracking input to a high degree of precision and *wild temperature variation* due to “internal” component variation – that is nonsense.

  43. Neville September 28, 2008 at 2:28 pm #

    Louis after watching the excellent series Wild Europe about 12 months ago it’s hard to be surprised at anything natural climate change throws up.
    Parts of Europe were once jungle then desert, then forests etc, and even when preparing the foundations of Nelson’s Column many African type animal bones were dug up like lions, zebras etc.
    I suppose continental drift plus volcancic activity, plus a more active and less active sun all helped change the world that we know today.
    Remember only 400.000 years ago parts of Greenland were covered with forests, so given enough time anything is possible.

  44. Louis Hissink September 28, 2008 at 2:50 pm #

    Neville

    Yes, indeed but the red herring I am on about is how an island like Spitsbergen could have been tropical in its present setting.

    The usual explanation is continental drift but that theory has been, more or less, put to rest (though you would not read about it).

    Greenland was covered with forests 400,000 years ago but in its present latitude? At its present latitude it is covered in ice. And 400,000 years ago continental drift is a no no as well.

    No one here seems to grasp the absurdity of this. To have forests growing in Greenland 400,000 years ago, how hot was the rest of the planet at that time? And is there evidence for that?

  45. Neville September 28, 2008 at 3:22 pm #

    The ultimate question I’d like an answer to Louis is the monotinous regularity of the ice ages?
    Why have the recent ice ages occurred every 100,000 years then this 10,000+ year interglacial?
    It can’t be volcanoes blowing their stacks exactly on cue, so is the trigger orbital plus solar plus planetary configuration etc?
    The famous earth wobble seems to always get a guernsey as well, but why exactly 100,000 years and why not 80,000 years and a 20,000 year interglacial with I’d imagine a much hotter ending?
    This interglacial seems to be a little longer and cooler than the previous four or five, so are we seeing the start of a slightly different trend, who knows.

  46. Jonathan Wilkes September 28, 2008 at 4:14 pm #

    Louis,
    “To have forests growing in Greenland 400,000 years ago, how hot was the rest of the planet at that time? And is there evidence for that?”

    Seems to me there is a lot more to this CC topic than we think.

    Can you point me to any literature re. ancient climate, and save me the time looking for it?

    Thank you

  47. DMS September 28, 2008 at 4:39 pm #

    For what it’s worth, is it not irrelevant whether scientists predicted an Ice Age in the 70s? They may or may not be the same scientists (and Hansen may or may not be one of them), but it seems like a distraction.

    The clear argument should be about whether there is warming now (probably not for 10 years, “maybe” in the long run), whether it is caused by human activity if there is (many seem to think that they are unrelated) and even if it was caused by humans whether economy-crippling ETSs etc. will change anything a damn, especially if only Australia doing it (Hell, no).

    I realise I’m OT here, but it doesn’t seem like the main game to worry about this.

  48. Louis Hissink September 28, 2008 at 4:39 pm #

    Jonathan

    I wish I could point you in the right direction – Richard Lindzen does some work on this but it’s new for me as well.

    I’m just starting to stick my nose into it and where to start is indeed the question.

  49. DMS September 28, 2008 at 4:41 pm #

    Having said the above, it’s still an interesting read on a Sunday afternoon and the cricket season hasn’t started yet.

  50. Louis Hissink September 28, 2008 at 4:55 pm #

    Neville

    You have hit a rather large nail on the head – its an artefact of the geological time scale determined from sedimentation rates and radiogenic dating.

    Lubos Motl picked up the recent paper on the variation of the nuclear decay rates and I extracted two articles/papers (not refereed so they don’t count as proper papers) on my blog http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com.

    The regular clockwork-like passing of the ice age parades is indeed a problem – the 100,000 year cycle is too cute but it fits the uniformist paradigm set up by Charles Lyell.

    The real danger in looking at nuclear decay rates is as Ralph Juergen writes – it will cause serious ructions in geology and astronomy.

    Unfortunately Juergen’s work is associated with Velikovsky’s ideas and that means it will be dismissed out of hand as junk science, and way off thread here as well so I won’t dwell on it).

    However we still do not really understand what causes ice ages and the associated species extinction events, so that means we really do not understand the past climate well at all, and that in itself makes the climate modelling all the more laughable.

    It’s amazing really, these global warmers are shrilling that we are going to have climate catastrophe, yet when you point out that humanity has memories of past climate catastrophes in which many died, then there is complete denail that these past events ever happened.

  51. Louis Hissink September 28, 2008 at 4:59 pm #

    DMS

    We do our best – luckily there is too much science here so the usual experts will be avoiding it.

  52. Gordon Robertson September 28, 2008 at 5:26 pm #

    Louis said…”Nowadays astronomers puzzle over reconnecting magnetic field lines – magnetic reconnection it’s called – not realising that its totally fictitious. They measure magnetic fields in deep space, they measure magnetic fluz ropes, and still have not made the connection with electricity”.

    That’s exactly what I’m talking about. There seems to be no cooperation between disciplines. I have been working in the electrical field for a long time and only recently did I come across a book that explains electrical circuits in terms of physics. They actually describe electrical circuits in terms of electrical and magnetic fields.

    Any voltage is a force which has an electric field around it. When you connect conductors to the source (voltage), the force field spreads out on and around the wires, even if they’re not connected to anything. When current flows in a closed circuit (ie. a movement of electrical charges), there is a magnetic field that operates at right angles to the electric field, and both the electric and magnetic fields operate perpendicular to the direction vector of the current.

    That’s why you can run an ordinary copper conductor through a piece of paper with iron filings on it, apply a current through the wire, and see the filings arrange themselves on the paper with the magnetic field.

    I have known this for years but I did not get it fully till recently that any electric power source has these field operating around them over several feet and that they are part of the power source. I understood the magnetic fields surrounding the coils in electric motors but for some reason associated them only with motors and transformers. I saw the magnetic fields as being independent of the electric fields even though they are dependent on each other.

    Conversely, those fields can induce currents in adjacent metal. So, any such E-M field in space has the ability to induce electrical charges, or be created by them. Electrons are electrical charges and they are everywhere.

    It amazes me that someone in one discipline would not walk across campus to confer with an expert in another discipline. I’m sure they do to an extent but why are computer modelers so adamant about not confering with experts in atmospheric physics, and why do many mathematicians operate independently of physicists?

  53. Louis Hissink September 28, 2008 at 6:18 pm #

    Gordon,

    Astronomers don’t get exposed to electricity at university – maybe in physics 101 – but that’s it.

    Hence my association with the plasma people and the geology of kimberlite eruptions. For years we knew that kimberlites pipes were some unusual “volcanic” eruption that literally tunnelled backwards into the earth by a vortex motion but we just did not know how to explain it using conventional geophysics.

    My interest in plasma went back to 1989 when I had an aboriginal heritage survey done over a mining property and was told by the Aboriginals that a particular locality was associated with the same dreamtime story of the Argyle diamond mine 150 km to the south. That jolted me because it meant that Aboriginals new something about a volcanic eruption that occurred 1100 Ma ago. Impossible of course unless our dating assumptions are wrong.

    One thing led to another and I ended up in the electric plasma camp where I worked out that kimberlite eruptions are actually enormous short circuits between the earth and some other intefering electrical body out in space, with the actual machining or tunelling achieved by corkscrewing Birkeland currents.

    There is some cross disciplinary study done when I was an undergrad but then it was physical science and social sciences, and even then I knew why I was enrolled in the physical sciences.

    I’ve become a member of the IEEE as well, because that is where geology should be heading.

    But science seems to be divided into two disparate areas – the hard physical sciences in which we get our hands dirty, and the esoteric non physical areas such as cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, etc, sciences which have an inability to peform experimental tests of hypotheses. And its there science, including mathematics, that the deductive method becomes dominant.

    It’s only we field people, the get the hands dirty types, who make the scientific breakthoughs and who cross pollinate with other disciplines.

    I suppose I am a little more fortunate than most geologists inso far that my area of expertise, diamond geology, deals with all the rocks. I am neither a hard rocker or soft rocker, as it were.

    Don’t forget the cultural backdrop to science – the West is a Christian culture and, like it or not, there has to be some compatilibility with a culture’s beliefs and its sciences – hence the dominance of Big Bang Theory in astronomy – not because it is right, but because it is compatible with religious belief.

    Charles Lyell as a devout Methodist and his principles of Geology were written to be compatible with scripture. I have to get hold of some of his biographies to learn more about our Father of Geology.

    The propblem with the Plasma Universe theory is that it starts with the assumption that the universe always existed, and its pretty obvious this idea won’t be too popular with Rome.

  54. SJT September 28, 2008 at 6:48 pm #

    “Ahh, SJT (as usual) does not need to read material from the “authority” – he just “knows” that it’s right…”

    Arnost, you made a specific claim on the methodolgy used to categorise papers.

    “It may all be very well to trumpet a statistic that there were no published papers that “predicted” a cooling. This may be entirely correct – however, it must be noted that all work published would have included the time honoured disclaimer along the lines published in the NAS report:

    “Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines it’s course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes.”

    Any paper with a disclaimer such as this would immediately go into WM Connolley’s neutral bin… And that’s why there’s only some 50 papers which appear to take a stand.”

    Care to back it up without dodging the point?

  55. SJT September 28, 2008 at 6:50 pm #

    “Luke… I think Arnost has answered your question…..

    Looks like you mob have been caught playing selectively with the data…. Again.

    It would seem most of the papers on cooling have been left off….”

    Arnost certainly gave that impression, without actually giving anything other than his opinion on which to make that conclusion.

  56. Jonathan Wilkes September 28, 2008 at 7:03 pm #

    SJT
    Comment from Arnost
    Time September 28, 2008 at 10:20 am

  57. DMS September 28, 2008 at 7:09 pm #

    Thanks Louis – science and the occasional bit of rhetoric is the reason this blog has been my #1 read for a while now.
    I don’t comment terribly often though, but read every post.
    All the best.
    DMS

  58. Louis Hissink September 28, 2008 at 7:16 pm #

    Thanks DMS :-)

  59. SJT September 28, 2008 at 8:54 pm #

    “SJT
    Comment from Arnost”

    His comment was pure conjecture.

  60. spangled drongo September 28, 2008 at 9:10 pm #

    “Schneider, of course, is the scientist who suggests it’s OK to lie to the public in order to get them onside with AGW theory.”

    Gordon Robertson,
    I found this bit about Stephen Schneider and cooling/warmingin an old Stanford Review.

    “In the sixties and early seventies, when global temperatures seemed to be falling, Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider claimed that fossil fuel burning was causing global cooling and needed to be curtailed. When temperatures started rising, he switched to claiming that that fossil fuel burning is causing global warming, and needs to be curtailed. If sunspot activity falls off and cooling returns, he will presumably again claim that human activity is causing cooling, and needs to be curtailed. Schneider seems to be starting with his preferred conclusion (human impact bad), then picking and choosing from the available reason and evidence to fashion the best case he can for this conclusion.”

  61. gavin September 28, 2008 at 10:00 pm #

    Watts all this crap about basic electrical theory?

    The discussion about electric and magnetic fields would be better placed in a team of students rewinding dc moters or building solenoids for the first time. no ?

    Louis : “One thing led to another and I ended up in the electric plasma camp where I worked out that kimberlite eruptions are actually enormous short circuits between the earth and some other intefering electrical body out in space, with the actual machining or tunelling achieved by corkscrewing Birkeland currents”… “I’ve become a member of the IEEE as well, because that is where geology should be heading”

    The big thing for me about the IEEE in the past was the electrical standards progress and their impact on intergovernmental proceedures

    http://www.ieee.org/web/standards/home/index.html

    I’m eagerly awaiting some climate issues going up this path too

    http://standards.ieee.org/

    Let’s swing right into electrical climates hey

  62. SJT September 28, 2008 at 10:13 pm #

    “In the sixties and early seventies, when global temperatures seemed to be falling, Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider claimed that fossil fuel burning was causing global cooling and needed to be curtailed. When temperatures started rising, he switched to claiming that that fossil fuel burning is causing global warming, and needs to be curtailed.”

    That’s where you need to educate yourself, Drongo.

    Particles from burning create cooling, the same way a volcano does.
    CO2 from burning create warming. The two effects have been having a ‘tug of war’ with the climate.

    Particles are relatively short lived, though, and CO2 is long lived.

  63. SJT September 28, 2008 at 10:28 pm #

    Schneider said.

    “Schneider once spoke of the difficulties scientists face communicating their work to the public:

    On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989; for the original, together with Schneider’s commentary on it misrepresentation see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996. [3]).

    Various distorted versions of the Discover quote noted above have also been circulated on the Internet and in print publications, apparently beginning with a version by Julian Lincoln Simon which omitted crucial text and inserted new material. Schneider did not say “Scientists should consider stretching the truth”; see [3] above.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

  64. Richard Mackey September 28, 2008 at 11:05 pm #

    That is a most peculiar attempt to falsify the past by Thomas Peterson, William Connolley and John Fleck.

    In a paper of his published in 1976, but completed in 1975, (“Long Term Variations in the Length of Day and Climate Change”, Geophysical Journal International Vol 26 Issue No 3 pps 555 to 573 Sept 1976), Kurt with his colleague Amy Cazenave were very clear that the scientific community of the day were observing that the world was experiencing a period of “decreasing average global temperature”. In the paper they not only record that phenomena, they predict that it would soon cease and that a period of global warming would commence. (See page 570 in the above paper).

    Global warming would commence they predicted because the Earth’s rotation was beginning to speed up. Kurt Lambeck did not then argue that the predicted increased warming would happen because of increased carbon dioxide. He and Amy Cazenave argued that the driver of global climate was the Earth’s rate of rotation. They noted that the rate had slowed and that this is way there was cooling. They found that the rate had begun to accelerate and that this is why it would warm up.

    Lambeck and Cazenave argued that the observational record since 1820 provided a sound foundation for the hypothesis that for time periods equal to or greater than a decade, planetary rotation drives climate introduced by according to which decadal rotation decrease (increase) results in planetary cooling (warming)]. This hypothesis has been corroborated by many papers since then.

    Lambeck and Cazenave wrote (page 570):

    “Whatever mechanism is finally proposed it will have to explain the apparently significant lag that is found between the LOD and the various climatic indices, temperature and excitations. The interest of this lag suggests that the LOD observations can be used as an indicator of future climatic trends, in particular of the surface warmings. Without a better understanding of the interactions between the two phenomena the use of the LOD observations in predicting climate is of very limited value but if the hypothesis is accepted then the continuing deceleration of m for the last 10 yr suggests that the present period of decreasing average global temperature will continue for at least another 5-10 yr. Perhaps a slight comfort in this gloomy trend is that in 1972 the LOD showed a sharp positive acceleration that has persisted until the present, although it is impossible to say if this trend will continue as it did at the turn of the century or whether it is only a small perturbation in the more general decelerating trend.”

    Had Kurt Lambeck continued this line of research he would, no doubt, has established that the warming now attributed to awg/ghg had a natural origin

    [note: m measures the rotation of the Earth].

  65. Bill Illis September 29, 2008 at 7:42 am #

    The one thing climate scientists seem to have a concensus about is rewriting history.

  66. Louis Hissink September 29, 2008 at 9:22 am #

    Gavin,

    The only crap is your pompous paternalism.

    Its remarkable that depending on how you crunch the statistics representing weather, you can get a cooling or a warming, suggesting that the whole theory is wrong.

    Hence the rewriting of history which has always been a leftist procedure and so is the ploy of subtel ridicule of opposing ideas.

    I notice you seem to not to have noticed the elephant in the living room concerning the paradox of a near tropical climate for Greenland 40,000 years ago, and the remarkable absence of any hotter climate elsewhere on the planet.

    But like any good leftie, your ploy will be to not think about it, and if it one does not think about something, it does not exist, does it.

  67. Louis Hissink September 29, 2008 at 9:23 am #

    Correction:

    Make that 400,000 years ago.

  68. spangled drongo September 29, 2008 at 10:28 am #

    SJT,
    I would think that any reasonable scientist who realised that if soot from burning FFs was causing cooling, the solution would be to prevent this by better combustion.
    We’ve doing this quite well for many decades.
    Don’t you think that his attitude shift might have run just a little deeper than this solvable problem?

  69. SJT September 29, 2008 at 11:18 am #

    “SJT,
    I would think that any reasonable scientist who realised that if soot from burning FFs was causing cooling, the solution would be to prevent this by better combustion.
    We’ve doing this quite well for many decades.
    Don’t you think that his attitude shift might have run just a little deeper than this solvable problem?”

    I can see his cause for concern. Fixing up particle pollution, despite all the protests from industry, proved to be quite achievable, fixing up the ozone problem, despite all the protests from industry, proved to be quite achievable. Fixing up CO2, however, is proving to be quite a problem.

  70. Louis Hissink September 29, 2008 at 11:46 am #

    Especially when it isn’t a problem in the first place.

  71. Jimmock September 29, 2008 at 1:09 pm #

    SJT: Schneider said.

    “Schneider once spoke of the difficulties scientists face communicating their work to the public:”

    Thanks for publishing that quote again. It’s always worth a reprint.

    It needs no distortion or editing to be an admission of biased, activist science.

  72. SJT September 29, 2008 at 1:31 pm #

    “It needs no distortion or editing to be an admission of biased, activist science.”

    The sound bite, much favoured by politicians, advertising, and most of the topics presented here, because it works. The vast majority of the human race, including myself, do not and cannot understand the intricacies of the whole climate research base. Ethically, what do you do in that situation, if you have people like Monkton and Chricton unashamedly going straight for the popular appeal angle of attack.

    Gavin tried having a debate on the scientific principles of AGW with Chrichton, and Chricton won, not because he is a better scientists, he is now sort of scientist at all, but he sells his ideas well, he knows how to appeal to people’s emotions. So who’s the biased activist? Who abused science?

  73. Jimmock September 29, 2008 at 2:19 pm #

    “The sound bite, much favoured by politicians, advertising, and most of the topics presented here, because it works. ”

    There is a difference though between activists seeking massive societal and policy change and status quoists. The burden of evidence surely rests with the former.
    I share your aparent abhorrence of the dumbing down of serious debate. I see it as a consequence of the triumph of managerialism.

    People who should be asking ‘is it true?’ are instead running ‘agendas’ and ‘programmes’ ; marketing themselves for funding; assuming that ‘stakeholders’ need to be educated to accept change, and not resist or ‘deny’ change, because change is good. It’s all thoroughly unscientific, managerial nonsense.

  74. J.Hansford. September 29, 2008 at 3:19 pm #

    …. So it is pretty much accepted that there was a worry about Global cooling in the ’70′s and that many scientists wrote papers on it, to which Journalists indulged in their usual sensationalism.

    …. And Thomas Peterson, William Connolley and John Fleck, selectively organized these papers in their study, in a way that excluded most papers on cooling and placed them in a third category that separated them from the data set to be compared.

    So this is the conclusion?…… Yes?

    (shades of Naomi Oreskes….. LOL.)

  75. J.Hansford. September 29, 2008 at 3:39 pm #

    … Seems a common thread with the AGW proponents…. The medieval warming was a problem. So they removed it.

    The Little Ice Age was a problem. So they removed it.

    The cooling of the 1940′s – 1970′s was a problem. So they remove it.

    The divergence of CO2 and Temperature in the last Decade and the negative connotations for the Hypothesis of AGW, is a problem. So they ignore it utterly until they can remove it.

    However, refusing to look at something. Doesn’t make it non existent Luke.

  76. SJT September 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm #

    “…. And Thomas Peterson, William Connolley and John Fleck, selectively organized these papers in their study, in a way that excluded most papers on cooling and placed them in a third category that separated them from the data set to be compared.”

    Unsupported assertion.

  77. Mikey September 29, 2008 at 7:06 pm #

    So imagine it does cool, and stays cold for 30 years. Can’t you just see the future Connelleys typing madly away about how there never was scientific support for a global warming scare in the early 2000s. It was all just media stories, and nobody knows where they could have gotten such a ridiculous idea.

  78. SJT September 29, 2008 at 7:12 pm #

    “So imagine it does cool, and stays cold for 30 years. Can’t you just see the future Connelleys typing madly away about how there never was scientific support for a global warming scare in the early 2000s. It was all just media stories, and nobody knows where they could have gotten such a ridiculous idea.”

    No, not at all. It’s all in the public, science record. Just like the papers he researched to publish the paper in question.

  79. TrueSceptic September 29, 2008 at 11:00 pm #

    I understand that one of the paper’s authors has submitted a comment here but it has been binned. Can someone (a moderator?) tell us if this was a simple glitch? If not, on what grounds was it refused?

  80. TrueSceptic September 29, 2008 at 11:07 pm #

    SJT,

    It’s all quite simple, isn’t it? All that needs to be done to refute this paper is to:-

    1. Show that some of the papers cited have been incorrectly assessed;
    or
    2. Show that a significant number of “cooling” papers from the period have been unjustifiably ignored;
    or
    3. Some comination of the above.

  81. SJT September 29, 2008 at 11:08 pm #

    Is that so? A simple glitch is easily fixed. Posts with lots of links can be blocked, apparently.

  82. TrueSceptic September 29, 2008 at 11:09 pm #

    *combination*, doh!

  83. kuhnkat September 30, 2008 at 1:30 am #

    SJT,

    “… fixing up the ozone problem, despite all the protests from industry, proved to be quite achievable. Fixing up CO2, however, is proving to be quite a problem.”

    Lessee here, exactly what did the OZONE solution entail and ACCOMPLISH??

    Last I heard there is still much breast beating over the very healthy Antarctic seasonal ozone hole!!! Just like CO2, an issue that is poorly understood and used to lash us ignorant peasants!!

    I believe the SCIENCE tells us that upper atmospheric ozone is primarily created there by the solar radiation. Since the Antarctic is shadowed for almost half the year, it CAN’T be created in place and must be renewed from outside the Antarctic area. As the prevailing atmospheric circulation prevents this, VOILA, a seasonal OZONE HOLE!!!

    Wonder what your excuse will be in the next 20 years?? You were lied to and let people die?? It was necessary for Der Vaterland? The devil made you do it??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  84. kuhnkat September 30, 2008 at 1:37 am #

    Luke,

    “In their survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1983 Peterson et al found …”

    Having been a young man during this period, I believe the SCARE only existed between about ’70 and ’78. Looking for papers outside of this period is a Red Herring.

    As usual for Excitists, set up the straw man and BURN HIM!!

  85. gavin September 30, 2008 at 5:34 am #

    Kuhnkat ”Having been a young man during this period, I believe the SCARE only existed between about ‘70 and ‘78”

    Although I normally don’t debate intruders on here from the US zone especially while thinking they need to fix up their own politics and perceptions first; it grates the reasons for a major public clean up campaign can be ignored. Back in the 70’s I was busy in support of the clean air brigade although somewhat indirectly.

    I vaguely recalled the likes of Stephen Schneider did have an influence as his name seemed familiar when mentioned by SJT further back in this thread but not a much for global cooling as “smog” was the target in general then. Authorities here were flat out chasing the photo chemical process and opacity meters being fitted on flues everywhere were simply part of that overall campaign. If cooling was an issue then it was only about selling the urgency of industry fully complying to the new EPA regime.

    Smog was a recognized killer everywhere and that fact made the following ozone campaign much easier too. Cooling quickly became a red herring in this context.

    BTY its my view the yanks and maple leafs are on here simply to camouflage their own tardiness on the CO2 issue.

  86. SJT September 30, 2008 at 9:21 am #

    “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA”

    The most intelligent statement you have made yet.

  87. SJT September 30, 2008 at 10:29 am #

    “SJT,

    It’s all quite simple, isn’t it? All that needs to be done to refute this paper is to:-

    1. Show that some of the papers cited have been incorrectly assessed;
    or
    2. Show that a significant number of “cooling” papers from the period have been unjustifiably ignored;
    or
    3. Some comination of the above.”

    That’s exactly what hasn’t happened.

  88. TrueSceptic September 30, 2008 at 8:48 pm #

    SJT,

    I know. It must be too easy, or something. ;)

  89. geo October 1, 2008 at 2:20 am #

    I recently, and quite by accident, ran across another somewhat more serious example of “global cooling” reporting in the 1970′s that the authors seem to have missed. More serious in that it lives somewhat in the boundary area between “media” and “science”.

    Tho it is still be one of the chief authors of “global cooling” articles of the time that the authors do identify –Walter Sullivan of the New York Times.

    In addition to his Times reporting, Sullivan did an article for the Compton’s Encylopedia Yearbook of 1976. At the time, Compton’s was owned by Encylopedia Brittanica as a somewhat more downmarket encylopedia set.

    Still, I think most people take encylopedia’s more seriously than daily newspapers as to their standards of accuracy and their more sober, non-sensationalistic approach to reporting. This is why I call this more serious than typical “media”.

    At any rate, it is called “Weather: Shaper of Civilizations Past, Present, and Future”.

    Among its claims is this rather alarming line: “In the past year or two there have been alarming suggestions that a new ice age is on the way.” and then go on to support that claim by citing the work of Reid Bryson.

    If anyone really wants to read the entirety of this article I could probably scan it and email it. I was looking for something else entirely when I found it.

  90. peterd October 1, 2008 at 5:31 pm #

    Indeed, geo, you are quite right to point out Reid Bryson’s views. I drew attention to Bryon’s 1970s pronouncements myself a little while ago… where was it? Here or over at wattsup? I forget. I am old enough to be able to remember the 1970s and what was “in the air” at the time was the uncertainty as to whether “global cooling” would continue, or whether warming due to CO2 would begin to predominate. In one of my own undergrad science courses, an article by Reid Bryson called “All other factors being constant….- Theories of Global Climatic Change” was included in one of the prescribed texts (T. Detwyler, Man’s Impact on Environment). In this article (originally published in Weatherwise, 1968), Bryson laid out his argument, considering solar, volcanic (& other aerosol) and CO2 contributions to the global temperature record since ca. 1800: “An increase of 1%in the normal reflectivity of “albedo” of the earth from perhaps 37% to 38% would lower the mean temperature of the earth about 1.7 C….[p]roponents of variation in cloudiness, volcanic dust, and man-made dust [my emphasis] as factors causing climatic change emphasize this factor. I am one of these.” Bryson considered the temperature record, and whether any of the proposed causes of change (solar, dustiness or turbidity, CO2) were adequate to explain the changes: “J. Murray Mitchell, Jr (1961) ….showed that from the 1990’s to the 1940’s the mean temperature of the world rose by 0.7 deg F…his diagram also shows the increase of sunspots during that time and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the same time. These changes are in the right direction to produce the observed change of world temperature. However, Mitchell’s diagram shows that after 1940 the world began to cool off…[which] hints strongly that something other than sunspots and CO2 is more important…Mitchell suggested that this other factor might be dust from volcanic eruptions….I believe that the increasing turbidity of the air due to these volcanic eruptions plus human activity [author’s emphasis]…is now overshadowing the increase of CO2 and is now causing worldwide cooling.
    In other words, here is Reid Bryson, a well-known “climate sceptic” (check him out on the “list of 500” or whatever it’s called this week) telling us in the 1970s that (1) global cooling was real; (2) that it was likely due to aerosols, with a substantial anthropogenic contribution to that, and (3) that cooling would outweigh CO2 (and solar) warming.
    “Global cooling” certainly was about in the 1970s. But it is far from clear that it was made fashionable by the likes of Stephen Schneider. It is also far from clear that Reid Bryson’s views would have defined a “consensus”. As we now know, the Clean Air Act went through in the 1970s and the result was a decrease in the aerosol content of the atmosphere. What happened to world temperatures after the 1970s?

  91. peterd October 1, 2008 at 5:33 pm #

    Hmph…no point in adding emphases to quoted text here…

  92. peterd October 1, 2008 at 5:46 pm #

    Kuhnkat: Luke, “In their survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1983 Peterson et al found …”
    Having been a young man during this period, I believe the SCARE only existed between about ‘70 and ‘78. Looking for papers outside of this period is a Red Herring.”
    As I indicate above, Bryson’s own views pre-date 1970 somewhat. His original article (revised for the 1970s book) appeared in 1968, so his thinking must have been developing in the mid 1960s.

  93. Graeme Bird October 1, 2008 at 6:31 pm #

    “I have no idea if he did or he didn’t, but a “Cooling program” doesn’t exist any more than a “CO2 model” does.”

    See you are just a liar SJT. You cannot even name ONE of these computer-models that is not a CO2-model.

    Let me save you some time you afterbirth!

    THE PEODOPHILE SJT’S LIKELY RESPONSE:

    “See you are just a liar SJT.” lol

    “See you are just a liar SJT.”

    Not only are you stupid and dishonest. You are fundamentally boring.

  94. Graeme Bird October 1, 2008 at 6:37 pm #

    The scientific consensus is that we are in for cooling. Thats just a fact. Anybody who actually dives into the scientific evidence will find that the consensus leads to DEFINITE SEVERE COOLING.

    “Definite” in that this is definately where the evidence points us. Yet we can still be wrong.

    Thats what the scientific consensus is because that is what the evidence tells us.

    But the sentiment of stolen-money-funded science-workers might say something else.

    It doesn’t say something else. But it MIGHT do. It might as well do. Because we don’t get our science from the UN or from polls amongst scientists. We get our science from the evidence and not from a great deal else than the evidence.

  95. PaulM October 2, 2008 at 3:09 am #

    SJT and TrueSceptic,
    You are right, it is too easy to refute this ridiculous attempt to re-write history.
    You can find plenty more ‘cooling’ papers that they seem to have missed in their ‘rigorous literature review’ in a few minutes with google scholar. Here’s one:

    Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age
    T. Hughes,
    Science 6 November 1970:
    Vol. 170. no. 3958, pp. 630 – 633

    Why has no one else bothered to do this?
    Go on, someone else find some more examples!

  96. Eli Rabett October 2, 2008 at 8:36 am #

    The fact that no one knows who Peterson is reminds me of the Tshirt from Star Trek: Beam me out Scotty, there is no intelligent life on this planet.

  97. SJT October 2, 2008 at 6:42 pm #

    “THE PEODOPHILE SJT’S LIKELY RESPONSE:”

    LOL

  98. TrueSceptic October 5, 2008 at 10:17 am #

    G Bird said
    “See you are just a liar SJT. You cannot even name ONE of these computer-models that is not a CO2-model.

    Let me save you some time you afterbirth!

    THE PEODOPHILE SJT’S LIKELY RESPONSE:

    “See you are just a liar SJT.” lol

    “See you are just a liar SJT.”

    Not only are you stupid and dishonest. You are fundamentally boring.”

    Can I suggest that this patient be kept away from any electrical equipment unless closely supervised? Moderate sedation might be sufficient at other times but physical restraint cannot be ruled out and must available at all times. The possibility of self-harm is an ongoing concern.

  99. TrueSceptic October 5, 2008 at 10:20 pm #

    PaulM,

    You mentioned the Hughes paper at Stoat in February.
    `http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/02/study_debunks_global_cooling_c.php#comment-767763`
    “William,
    I don’t have access to the rest of the paper by Moran. But the statement ‘supports the notion that the ice age is returning’ indicates that this view was indeed current at the time.
    Here is another one, by a polar scientist – do they count in your book? :)
    Again I don’t have the whole paper yet.
    Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age
    T. Hughes
    Science 170, no. 3958, 630 – 633 (1970)

    [I've seen that one. It wins a prize for most misleading abstract ever. Read the paper - its nothing to do with a new ice age -W]”

    You didn’t reply to Connelley’s comment then. Do you have something now?

  100. TrueSceptic October 8, 2008 at 12:14 am #

    So, PaulM has failed to show that the Hughes paper belongs in the cooling/ice age pile.

    Where are all the others he thinks are out there?

  101. geo October 8, 2008 at 3:38 am #

    Btw, since you mention Connelley, he contacted me last week and asked for a scan of the Compton Yearbook entry I reference upstream. He said he would blog on it at some point, but I haven’t seen it yet. But then we’re all busy people.

Website by 46digital