The media have warned of impending climate changes for at least the last century. Most recently, global warming has been the, er, hot topic. But in the 1970s it was global cooling.

This again?

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s - frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds - is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s (new window)

Green?

Really?

That's just sad. But these threads are always instructive in their own way.

I can survive increasingly colder winters and summers. Can you?

Tr0mBoNe: I can survive increasingly colder winters and summers. Can you?

This is why the whole concept needs to be called "climate change."

co-conspirator: these threads are always instructive in their own way

They tend to populate my list of people who get farkied in black for trollery and/or stupidity.

Which is the one where it gets hotter and does that mean the other one makes it cooler? Cuz I gotta tell ya.. anymore I don't think anyone knows what the hell they are talking about.

This is why the whole concept needs to be called "climate change."

Right, so no matter what the hell happens, the environauts are always right.

Idiots.

Suicidal Writer: The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s - frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds - is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s (new window)

As someone who was in college at the time, I have to say that I remember no guest lecturers speaking about global warming, but many warning of an approaching ice age that would freeze Canada under massive sheets of ice.

The funniest and most fantastic proposed solution was to launch huge Mylar film mirrors into space to reflect sunlight onto the polar caps to warm and melt them. I wonder how many of those later changed to the warming side of the isle and how many are behind the new ice age theorists?

We had a hundred and two degrees of global cooling here earlier this week.

Dufus: I wonder how many of those later changed to the warming side of the isle and how many are behind the new ice age theorists?

Uh, "aisle", not "isle"...but, otherwise, probably most of them. On the "warming" front, I mean.

Bufu: Uh, "aisle", not "isle"

You are talking space to walk between rows of chairs... I'm talking where a bunch of spastic lemming-like people think the sky is falling every time one of the coconuts falls and hits them on the head.

Funny thing is, the volcano in the center of the island (an asteroid in near Earth orbit) will probably get both sides before either scenario plays out.

Funny thing is, the volcano in the center of the island (an asteroid in near Earth orbit) will probably get both sides before either scenario plays out.

True, rock on.

Another Ice Age sequel?

Hollywood really *is* running out of ideas.

/wait...

Subby. Cool tag. Icy what you did there.

You know what's great? It's finally gotten to a point where I can look, see "News Busters," and ignore the link without any further effort.

An article from Newsbusters . . . oh, now I see. Thanks for 'exposing and combating liberal media bias' for me.

well, i hoped for a link to a real article with some interesting information or analysis. instead, i got a ton of trollacious propaganda. from two blogs.

Hopefully this will not harm Canadian Beaver, or Canadian Beaver II for all that matters.

CAN'T YOU SEE IT, GLOBAL WARMING MELTS ICECAPS AND THE COLD FREEZING ICE AIR GOES UP AND SPREAD ALL OVER THE WORLD AND CAUSES TEMPORATURES TO DROP EVEN THO THE ITS RISING SO, WE ARE HAVEING GLOBAL WARNING AND COOLING AT THE SAME TIME, GET YOUR SCIENCE RIGHT!!!!1

ITS IETHER THAT OR THE BUSHCHANEYHITLERBURTON HEATFREEZE RAY, WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!9

maybe the governments super top secret project to reverse this "global cooling" was a little too successful? and now we are paying the price.... muhahahahahahahahaha!

I was in elementry school in the late 70s they tried to scare us about global cooling. And we would see Jimmy Carter in the white house wearing a sweater using wood for heat.

Although I think I've heard of NewsBusters, I've never paid them the slightest attention (of course, same goes for American Idol, American Gladiator, and American Oprah).

Had no idea they were a right-wing propaganda machine. Huh. That said, the video was actually funny in bits (particularly the justice / porn thang).

DeltaXi65: This is why the whole concept needs to be called "climate change." still doesnt change the fact that humans have little do with any of it.
not that I want spew thick clouds of pollutants and drive a vehicle that gets 3 mpg. I just dont want to go as drastic as the envirotards want me to go, they'd have us all living in caves riding bicycles to the collective farm , where us use human powered plows...oooh wait cant have bicycles either, my bad.

just to throw these tards for a loop. I tend to think that global cooling is very likely. Maybe we made some effect on global warming and reversed, we can blame them when the iceage comes...we had it undercontrol lol.

Well, at least the article was the exact opposite of a reasoned and objective treatment of the subject.

So we have that going for us, which is nice.

I always maintain that all these things will cancel each other out.

I'm sorry, but how does the cooling theory say that the "liberal" warming theory is wrong?

The warming theory says greenhouse gasses are raising global temperature. The cooling theory says that the sunspot cycle may signal that a different mechanism may offset that for a net drop in global temperature.

All that says to me is that, if the cooling theory is correct and if current greenhouse gas production continues, after a cool period, temperatures will rebound past current norms and well into "toasty".

In the 1970's there was finally enough historical data and barely enough computing power available for people to _start_ trying to put 2 and 2 together. So whatever people were saying in the 1970's about future climate, they were just pulling out of their butt.

sinanju: I'm sorry, but how does the cooling theory say that the "liberal" warming theory is wrong?

The warming theory says greenhouse gasses are raising global temperature. The cooling theory says that the sunspot cycle may signal that a different mechanism may offset that for a net drop in global temperature.

All that says to me is that, if the cooling theory is correct and if current greenhouse gas production continues, after a cool period, temperatures will rebound past current norms and well into "toasty".


Well, for starters, it's not testable until it happens, so you can't prove it. That's not science. Congratulations, you've entered the realm of faith, which a lot of this crap is.

Mart Laar's beard shaver: sinanju: I'm sorry, but how does the cooling theory say that the "liberal" warming theory is wrong?

The warming theory says greenhouse gasses are raising global temperature. The cooling theory says that the sunspot cycle may signal that a different mechanism may offset that for a net drop in global temperature.

All that says to me is that, if the cooling theory is correct and if current greenhouse gas production continues, after a cool period, temperatures will rebound past current norms and well into "toasty".


Well, for starters, it's not testable until it happens, so you can't prove it. That's not science. Congratulations, you've entered the realm of faith, which a lot of this crap is.


because running a one shot experiment from inside the test tube is a brilliant strategy.

This has nothing to do with the 70s global cooling theories. What the article is about is actually becoming a growing concern among scientists. The Sun has shown no sunspot activity for two years. This is not normal and the last time this lack of sunspot activity was seen was in the 1650s. For about 50 years there was a period of time we call the mini ice age where the sun had a lack of sunspot activity.

Here is a much better article from a more reliable source.

Link

Mart Laar's beard shaver:
Well, for starters, it's not testable until it happens, so you can't prove it. That's not science. Congratulations, you've entered the realm of faith, which a lot of this crap is.

Um... this is exactly how science works:

- We have some evidence from the "little ice age" upon which we build a model.

- Using the model, we make predictions -- "The impending sunspot cycle will cause cooling"

- We verify/discredit the model's predictions -- live through the next sunspot cycle, gather data, and make required adjustments to remove variables such as measured warming from greenhouse gasses.

- We adjust the model or make a new one based in the new data.

None of that has anything to do with faith... so how about a nice cup of STFU?

"according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era"

I own many Nat'l Geog's from the 70's. Perhaps that's not the aforementioned scientific literature they're talking about. Too bad the article doesn't mention that. Then again, that might mean they'd have to provide sources & documentation and we can't have that!

This reminds me of when Popular Mechanics "debunked" certain 9/11 conspiracy theories. They didn't debunk a damned thing.

Global warming has Al Gore, so global cooling needs a hero of equal Beta male status.

Get me Ron Paul!

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why it's called "Climate Change". What will happen with combined man-made global warming and nature-made global cooling is that winters will be cold as hell and summers will be hot as hell. This trend will cause storms to get out of control, weather patters to get all kinds of farked up, and everything to just generally suck and try to kill us with more hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts.

Wait, "will be"? As if this isn't already happening? EVERYBODY PANIC! WHAT CAN WE DO TO STOP THIS?!?!?!!111oneone

Well, by this point...we're just farked because there's not a damn thing we can do anymore. Stock up on canned goods and charcoal.

Drudge has an article about a heat wave...in California...in summer. That proves that global cooling is not real.

What? It works the other way round--every time it snows in Wisconsin in February it proves that global warming is not real!

gibbon1: This is different to today how? We still don't have appropriate models and computing power to fully grasp climate.

Mart Laar's beard shaver: Well, for starters, it's not testable until it happens, so you can't prove it. That's not science. Congratulations, you've entered the realm of faith, which a lot of this crap is.

Falsification is only one of many criteria for scientific research. Reproducibility, Hypothesis testing, Prediction confirmation, etc.

As people understand more and more about how the climate works, those predictions are going to change (Hence the move from Global Warming to Global Climate Change, as their data and models predict certain areas becoming warmer and others cooler, with more unpredictable and wild climate.)

But thats pretty much the end of knowledge in the area. Science nerd, but not around climate.

I wouldn't worry about that.

Note that the time scale on this chart is logarithmic--that little blip of cooling after the first agriculture lasted 3,000 years--until the cultivation of rice began in Asia.

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/Temp20000years.jpg

Compare the rise in temperature in the last 100 years to the rise in temperature at the end of the last ice age (and over a period of 2,000.

You think maybe we can't overwhelm an ice age? We already have, kids!

Try turning that logarithmic time scale into a linear time scale in your mind--so that the last century becomes a sheer wall while that 3,000 year blip between the cultivation of wheat in Turkey and Mesopotamia and the terracing of hills in China and South East Asia with man-made bogs turns into a long, long haul.

What we are going through since 1900 is more momentous than the "rapid" end of the ice age.

The reality is, no matter what, we are going to have another ice age in the next few thousand years. That is going on the average time between the last several hundred ice ages. Will you live to see Montana ice over? Possibly.

It's back to the future for global cooling! Just swap the words 'cooling' for 'warming' and you've got an article straight out of todays newspapers! Note the same 'voices' warning of global cooling are the ones we now see warning us of global warming! (click image for larger version of article)



Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

Mart Laar's beard shaver: Well, for starters, it's not testable until it happens, so you can't prove it. That's not science. Congratulations, you've entered the realm of faith, which a lot of this crap is.

You were home-schooled, yes?

And here's a point for those who say the 1970's were too 'primitive' for scientists to know anything.

Just how advanced do you think your 30-years-from-now Farker will regard *our* scientific abilities?

Great headline.

SgtArkie: I was in elementry school in the late 70s they tried to scare us about global cooling. And we would see Jimmy Carter in the white house wearing a sweater using wood for heat.

Likewise, although I have to say the "scare" factor was much more restrained than the scare about global warming is today; however, that may merely be an artifact of more news channels & the Internet (we had, of course, neither in the 1970's).

I am more inclined to listen to REAL climatological students like Brian Fagan, who has observed repeatedly, tho no one is paying attention, that climate has been extremely variable throughout the last 10,000 years, with a complex interplay between warm, cold, dry, wet, and so on. Although he notes that most of the time short, intense warm periods are usually followed by much longer, intensely cold periods.

But what do paleoclimatologists know about the climate?

20,000 years ago the level of CO2 was about 180 ppm. The Earth was 5-6 degrees Celsius cooler during the glaciation than the average of the last few thousand years. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution it was 280 ppm. It is about 380 ppm today after humans pumped 100 ppm into the atmosphere. Add in other greenhouse gases and you are even higher--close to the "safe" limit beyond which certain natural feedback loops kick in with a vengeance.

In 1896, Svante Arrhenius, Sweden's greatest scientist,testing the hypothesis that the levels of "greenhouse gases" may have been responsible for the ice ages, made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C. The groundwork for the "greenhouse effect" was done by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s and John Tyndall in the 1850s. It was simple physics that a rock the same distance from the Sun as the Earth would be much colder but it took much longer to convince scientists that humans could increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It was only in the 1950s, a century after Tyndall studied the properties of various gases, that it was proven that the CO2 levels were rising.

The objection of earlier scientists seems to have been based on studies of absorption of CO2 by the Oceans and the lack at that time of any evidence of large shifts in greenhouse concentrations due to fossil fuels or other causes. We now know that the Oceans have absorbed about half o the CO2 we have produced--but they can be saturated by human-generated CO2 emissions, which means that they are ceasing to absorb CO2 in many places already. All the other objections fell apart over the next 50-100 years.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The article which started it all:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Arrhenius_pdf

Far from being a "Commie plot" by modern greens, global warming science has its roots in the XIXth century. It is based on chemical and physical facts which can not be denied by any scientist who does not wish to wear a dunce cap. It took over 100 years to go from the discovery that CO2 is opaque to some wavelengths of infrared (Fourier, 1820s) (while it is transparent to much of the light coming into the atmosphere from the Sun) to proving that it was building up (Keeling, 1950s).

Sir Fred Hoyle, the maverick of XXth century physics and astronomy, was arguing for the possibility of an ice age in the 1970s. I have read his book, Ice. He's also a proponent of the panspermia theory that life began somewhere other than on Earth and came here by comet or asteroid and the co-author of a science fiction novel about a sentient dust cloud (The Black Cloud).

This theory was over-blown by the media, cartoonists, the general public, etc. No serious scientist ever dared to say that it was imminent. Remember that to geologists and astronomers, a few thousand years is a very short time--the World of Next Tuesday.

But the people who keep harping on the "it was global cooling in the 1970s" theme are lying dogs and fools. It wasn't. Not for scientists. Not even for the minority of scientists who were concerned by the possibility that cooling had already begun.

Cooling may well be underway, but we put the kibosh on that for the next couple of thousand years, at least.

If we could somehow manage to have global warming and global cooling happen at the same time they could cancel each other out and we would have global nothing.

brantgoose: [snipped much excellent knowledge and links]
Cooling may well be underway, but we put the kibosh on that for the next couple of thousand years, at least.

Sh. You must stop interjecting so much common sense and intelligent science into what needs to be an oversimplified and literal-minded debate.

People might begin to think, and Kali knows we can't have that.