Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.

Climate Myth...

Ice age predicted in the 70s

"[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice)

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

Basic rebuttal written by John Russell


Update July 2015:

Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

 

Last updated on 5 July 2015 by pattimer. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Further reading

Further viewing

"In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age" from Climate Denial Crock of the Week.

Comments

Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 68 out of 68:

  1. I still haven't found a way to list the various questions that I've touched on this site. When I refer to 'ice age' I'm talking about the ice ages that occur on the 100,000 year period, as revealed by the ice core data. Chris Shaker
    Response:

    [DB] Read this post:  Milankovitch Cycles

  2. Dikran: I would appreciate very much knowing how I can look at my own posting history. So far, I do not see any way to access my own posting history to see what questions I have posted under. It does not appear that Google is allowed to index the comments under the questions on this website? Thank you, Chris Shaker Dikran Marsupial said at 21:33 PM on 23 October, 2011 CBDunkerson I have just looked into cjshaker's posting history, and it appears that he asks many questions, but rarely replies to the answers.
    Response:

    [DB] I'm not sure if you can access this link, but your posting history can be found here.

  3. Dikran: Thank you very much for the link! Works like a champ for me. Chris Shaker
  4. I just ran across this paper, (Damon & kunen 1976) "Global Cooling?" In the abstract is the following: Because of the rapid diffusion of CO2 molecules within the atmosphere, both hemispheres will be subject to warming due to the atmospheric (greenhouse) effect as the CO2 content of the atmosphere builds up from the combustion of fossil fuels. Because of the differential effects of the two major sources of atmospheric pollution, the CO2 greenhouse effect warming trend should first become evident in the Southern Hemisphere. The socioeconomic and political consequences of climate change are profound. Science 6 August 1976: Vol. 193 no. 4252 pp. 447-453 DOI: 10.1126/science.193.4252.447 Global Cooling? It seems that not only was the consensus recognizing global warming, but there was a warning with respect to socioeconomic and political consequences.
  5. Bad news John/Dana/whoever is responsible for this page--the link to the video is dead. Maybe replace it with potholer54's video here

  6. Please correct the caption to figure 1

    Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

    Of these 15 years, 14 had more warming than cooling papers


    Looking at the data on the bar graph it appears that there is one year (1971) in which there were 2 cooling papers to the single warming paper.  

    It may be insignificant, but it is an error.  A suggested correction.

  7. Peter Gwynne, the author of the referenced Newsweek article from 1975, recently published the article "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong" which is well worth a read.

  8. Does anyone have a link to the Scientific American article from the 1950s (or 60s?) called "Carbon Dioxide and Climate". So far I have seen only the attached rather blurred scan. I would like to read it (and find out the date!)

     

    SciAm article from the 1950s on climate change

    Response:

    [PS] Fixed image size

  9. This looks to be the G Plaas paper. You can find references and links to these early papers here including this one. See also the wonderful Weart book "The discovery of global warming".

    For the sciam reference, see here. A republish of july 1959 article.

    Note that this is offtopic. Please do not continue discussion in this thread.

  10. LizR @58, Scientific American republished that article in 2008 "to offer an historical perspective on some of the issues being discussed at the United Nations Framework Climate Change Conference".  The full original version including charts and illustrations has also been reproduced as a PDF here.

  11. The "most cited" 1970's article heading this SkS post does contain a grown-up bit of referencing that I don't see discussed in the comment thread here. The 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" quotes from "a recent report by the National Acadamy of Sciences" which is the 1975 report by the Panel on Climatic Variation "Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action". This long report (a transcript of sorts here) is certainly not about global cooling but about the threat from any form of climate change.

    Beyond that basic conclusion, the report does strangely pull its punches when it comes to CO2 emissions, even though CO2 is the first man-made impact to be listed and its impacts are then enumerated.

    The corresponding changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to C0 2 [as calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3 °C per 10 percent change of C0 2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the observed warming of the earth between 1880 and 1940. They could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5 °C between now and the end of the century.

    Yet the message that CO2 presents a threat is somehow lost, with the 'Program for Action' calling for research into climate rather than a reduction of CO2 emissions. Somehow the stark message of the Charney Report just four years later is absent, such conclusions overwhelmed by talk of other human impacts. The report gets bogged down with the likes of the theoretical potential of aerosol cooling (that "cannot be reliably determined from present information") becoming more important in future:-

    Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a). If both the C0 2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of C0 2 .

    And the impact of waste heat (which logically could be a big problem if fossil fuels were replaced by thermally inefficient nuclear power) is considered along with other various albedo effects, all competing with the CO2 message.

    Yet, there are certainly no predictions of a "cooling world", no ice age being predicted here. Rather, the message is that climate change is dangerous.

  12. What happens when we take this article's opening statement, "1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based", and apply it to today's climate debate? Let's see:

    "Climate change fears (ice age predictions) of the early 21st century (1970s) were predominantly media based." 

    Is that not an accurate statement? The public's perception of climate change in the modern era has been shaped by the media, not science. Of the millions of people who think they're saving the planet by driving a Prius, only a tiny fraction, far less than 1%, have actually taken the time to review actual scientific data on the topic. They don't know what the term 'greenhouse gas' actually means, nor do they care to. (They also don't know that the Nickel in their beloved Prius's batteries was extracted though mining operations that are more polluting than almost any other human activity).

    The media shaped public opinion on climate in the 1970s just like it does today. 

  13. No, Kabothpa, it is not an accurate statement. You seem to have neglected "science" in your comment: the '70s predictions were almost entirely media, with little science, while today there is a very strong science foundation reagarding future warming.

    You have played "bait and switch" (perhaps not intentionally) by first discussing a general statement about the 1970s ice age predictions, and finishing with a statement about media shaping public opinion. How public opion is shaped is not a discussion about the scientific position, and the 1970s scientific position on cooling (extremely limited support) is not at all like the current scientific position on CO2-caused warming (very strongly supported).

  14. Recommended supplemental reading:

    My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong

    It's time for deniers of human-caused global warming to stop using an old magazine story against climate scientists.

    by Peter Gwynne, Inside Science, May 21, 2014

  15. "The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet"Following is a link to 93 papers concerned about an imminent ice age in the 1970's. http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.ydkdfTSH.dpbsCan the moderator either rebut these 93 or provide 6 times as many "warming" papers from the 1970's?
  16. Bruce:

    From the first reference at your link (Hanson et al 1981)

    "Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage." (my emphasis)

    Hardly in support of global cooling.  The second reference: Benton 1970 also predicts global warming with increasing carbon dioxide.  After the first two I stopped checking.

    When you cite papers that predict additional warming and say that they support claims of global cooling it is easy to get a lot of papers.  Scientists read the citations and realize that the claims of predictions of global cooling rely on readers who do not check the citations.

  17. Just like Michael Sweet says.

    Bruce @65 . . . . what, if any, is the point you are wishing to make?

    Have you read any of the alleged 93 papers?  It would be wise of you to read at least a small sample of those papers to see if they were really "concerned".   Be wise of you, because Notrickzone is a notorious Fake News outlet, which spouts an amazingly-large amount of BS on all sorts of topics and seems to enjoy winding-up gullible & ignorant readers.  (Presumably that's how they make their money at the website.)

    That's not to say that it ain't (just) possible that the Notrickszoners might actually have published something truthful this time [gotta be a first time for them, sometime, right?] . . . but judging by their track record, they usually only prefer to to tell a truth is it's a half-truth which misleads or misdirects the gullible readers.  So be on your guard, Bruce !!   And do a bit of cross-checking.

    Now, back to the Notrickszone message.

    And the first question is : So what?   Bruce, read the brief article above [by John Russell] and view the 5-minute video by David Bedford.  And look at the [1914] report mentioned in post #64 just above your own post #65.

    Look again at the reality, Bruce : the globe is warming rapidly; sea level is rising ever faster; the world's ice is melting rapidly decade by decade. (Not many glaciers left in Glacier National Park now, Bruce.  Sad. )    And the world has just had its 4 hottest years on record ( 2014 / 2015 / 2016 / and 2017 is in the bag ! )

    And it's gonna get hotter still — as said by virtually all the scientists who know what's what.   There's no reason left to believe any of the BS coming from the science-deniers (or from Notrickszoners, either).   Look around, Bruce — unlike in the 1970's , there are nowadays no credible scientists remaining, who think Global Warming ain't happening.

    And all the climate scientists have got the evidence backing their opinion !!

    So, Bruce, what do you think?   (Forget the Notrickszone rubbish/spin.)

  18. Typo correction : that should read "... look at the [2014] report mentioned in post #64 ..."

    Only clairvoyants in 1914, could perceive a 1975 'Cooling World' Story !

  19. As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!

    Is this 'a new one'?
    " They told me when I was at school we were heading steadily for another ice-age and the cause was CFCs.
    I’ve asked in here more than once what happened to the hole in the ozone layer that would inevitably grow and grow and let all the heat out. Nobody will tell me."

    www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/climate-change-hysteria/#post-48853

    Response:

    [TD] Sort of, here.

  20. James Charles,

    The issue with the ozone hole is that harmful UV radiation is allowed in.  I have never heard of significant heat being let out.

    If "they told me at school" was that college, high school or elementary school? Was it in a Science class or an English class?   It is unlikely that it was college.  Grade school teachers are not really atmospheric experts.  Do we rely on experts or grade school teachers? 

  21. Mr sweet,

    This may enlighten you

    Cooling of the Arctic and Antarctic Polar Stratospheres due to Ozone Depletion

    William J. Randel and Fei Wu
    National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

    "The Antarctic data show strong cooling (of order 6–10 K) in the lower stratosphere (∼12–21 km) since approximately 1985. The cooling maximizes in spring (October–December), with small but significant changes extending throughout Southern Hemisphere summer. "

  22. Barry, how do you understand stratographic cooling affecting surface climate? Note that one the big fingerprints for GHG warming is surface warming but stratispheric cooling. However, changes in ozone muddy the picture so detecting the GHG effect means separating this from O3 changes.

  23. scaddamp,

    It is often quoted that many gases such as carbon dioxide , methane and water heat up the eath by allowing visible light to enter and block the infrared radiation coming out.

    Amongst these gases ozone is often included for it too is purportedly acting in a similar way.

    Are you therefore suggesting that Ozone in the troposphere does not have such an effect?  I think the Climate Kids would dissagree with you.

    "Close to the ground, ozone acts as a greenhouse gas and can be formed by burning gas in cars and factories"   Re The climate kids!

    https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-cards/

  24. Ozone is a powerful greenhouse gas in the troposphere.

    However, your paper was on stratospheric cooling and looking at the effect of stratospheric ozone.  It did not seem pertinent in any way to Michael sweet point. ie the wierd idea that hole in ozone layer was going to cool the earth. I am asking what you think the relevance of your quoted paper on stratospheric cooling is to this question. The ozone in the stratosphere is generated by UV interactions in the stratosphere. It is not a pollutant coming up from the troposphere.

  25. It might also help discussions if you explained why you think ozone depletion reduces stratospheric temperature (or perhaps more to point, why ozone warms the stratosphere).

  26. Barry,

    As Scaddenp states, your two comments conflate stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone.  These are two different subjects and treating them as similar suggests that you do not understand atmospheric chemistry.

    I will address your comment at 71 on stratospheric ozone first.  According to this RealClimate post, the decrease in stratosheric ozone caused by human pollution will result in approximately -.15 w/m2 of cooling.  The CFC's released by humans have caused approximately +0.34 w/m2 of heating due to their greenhouse properties.  Thus the result of CFC pollution is a net warming of the surface. 

    The total warming caused by CO2 pollution is much larger (about 1.7 W/m2 in 2011).  Larger amounts of CFC pollution would result in more warming, not cooling as you suggest.  Dr. Hansen's 1989 projections, especially the high emission pathway, overestimated warming somewhat because the Montreal protocol resulted in CFC emissions being lower than he projected (more emissions mean more heating). 

    Your comment at 72 addresses tropospheric ozone.  Everyone except you knows that ozone is a greenhouse gas.  It causes warming when increases in trophospheric ozone occur.  Ozone is not even on the table in my reference above.  The contribution of CO2 is much greater because CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere over time while ozone is destroyed and does not accumulate.

    I stand by my comment that " I have never heard of significant heat being let out."  The Realclimate post I linked starts out "One of the most common mistakes that we have observed in discussions of climate and atmospheric change is confusion between the rather separate concepts of ozone depletion and global warming."  When I taught High School students often confused climate change and ozone depletion.  As Realclimate states, they are different problems, although they are tangentially related.

    The original question from post 69 was "They told me when I was at school we were heading steadily for another ice-age and the cause was CFCs".  The answer is scientists have never said that CFC's would cause an ice age to occur.  The person who asked the question was either misinformed or attempting to mislead others with a false question.

  27. michael sweet states

    I have never heard of significant heat being let out.   #70

    "As Scaddenp states, your two comments conflate stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone. These are two different subjects and treating them as similar suggests that you do not understand atmospheric chemistry." #76

    No it does not  Again Sweet comments in #76

    "According to this RealClimate post, the decrease in stratosheric ozone caused by human pollution will result in approximately -.15 w/m2 of cooling. The CFC's released by humans have caused approximately +0.34 w/m2 of heating due to their greenhouse properties. Thus the result of CFC pollution is a net warming of the surface"   Sweet

    Actually ozone accounts for up to 0.6 W m-2

    "We all know that ozone in the stratosphere blocks harmful ultraviolet sunlight, and perhaps some people know that ozone at the Earth's surface is itself harmful, damaging people's lungs and contributing to smog.

    But did you know that ozone also acts as a potent greenhouse gas? At middle altitudes between the ground and the stratosphere, ozone captures heat much as carbon dioxide does.

    "In fact, pound for pound, ozone is about 3000 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2. So even though there's much less ozone at middle altitudes than CO2, it still packs a considerable punch. Ozone traps up to one-third as much heat as the better known culprit in climate change. "

    http://www.aoas.org/article.php?story=20080522125225466

    I think that a third of that of COis significant --others have it as high as 40% but sweet 

     

    #70 sweet states  Grade school teachers are not really atmospheric experts.  Neither are secondary teachers Those that ca do those that can't teach 

    Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  28. "At middle altitudes between the ground and the stratosphere,"

    ie the troposphere. You appear to continue to get confused about difference between O3 in stratosphere versus effect in troposphere. Again the ozone hole is about lose of stratospheric ozone around poles, especially Antarctica, and no, it still doesnt let the heat out and cool climate.

    In the stratosphere, ozone causes warming of the surrounding air through its interaction with incoming UV.

  29. "It might also help discussions if you explained why you think ozone depletion reduces stratospheric temperature (or perhaps more to point, why ozone warms the stratosphere)." scaddemp #75

    S Could you please point out that I have stated it?  No you cannot because it is an invention of your imagination!

  30. "Everyone except you knows that ozone is a greenhouse gas. " sweet #76

    Moderator 

    this is an absolute falsehood, please could you ensure that it is removed.

    Sweet has no knowledge of my thoughts but he may think he does!  and if everybody knows that ozone is a greenhouse gas why are there so many climate deniers?

    Please could sweet supply citations for both of his postulates?

  31. Again the ozone hole is about lose of stratospheric ozone around poles, especially Antarctica, and no, it still doesnt let the heat out and cool climate.

    I never stated that.

    please locate the phrase that you purport to this comes from

    you cannot because  it is your invention.

    but I do suggest that you think about what you are posting

  32. "S Could you please point out that I have stated it?"

    It is entirely possible that we are misunderstanding each other. Michael Sweet was pointing out what was wrong with the idea that an ozone hole was going to lead to global cooling.

    You replied:

    Mr sweet,

    This may enlighten you

    Cooling of the Arctic and Antarctic Polar Stratospheres due to Ozone Depletion

    Which correctly shows that loss of ozone leads to stratigraphic cooling (but not to climatic cooling). Your manner of comment suggested that you were trying to contradict Michael Sweet. If you were trying to support his argument, then indeed, we are cross-purposes. You seemed somewhat confused between tropospheric and stratospheric ozone and so I thought it might clarify matters if you explained how you thought it worked.

    My understanding is this:

    In the stratosphere, O3 reduces the energy reaching the surface because it traps incoming UV. (ie unlike N2, O2, and for that matter CO2, it is NOT transparent to incoming solar radiation). This warms the stratosphere but it is a cooling effect on surface climate. On the other hand, O3 is also a greenhouse gas so traps outgoing IR causing some warming. I believe the balance is towards a very small warming effect.

    In the troposphere by comparison, UV is mostly absent and so the greenhouse effect is more important (but O3 levels are very low).

    Reducing the O3 cools the stratosphere alright but it means there is more energy (UV) warming the surface and so no, the O3 hole is not a climate cooling mechanism.

  33. If you are in disagreement with Sweet and articles here, it would be best if you clearly stated what your disagreement is rather than have others try to guess.

  34. By the way... has anyone written a post debunking the Wattsupwiththat article (Nov 2018) on why there was a consensus on global cooling / imminent ice age etc? It is of course riddled with misunderstandings / errors / assumptions. I was going to have a go myself (I am not a scientist) but just in the area of logic and comprehension there are all sorts of problems. 

  35. Dave Evans @84,

    The Wattsupian nonsense from Nov 2018 you ask about doesn't appear to have been de-bunked but the major slight-of-hand employed by the denialist-&-nonsense-author Angus MacFarlane has been de-bunked by SkS.

    The Nov 2018 nonsense purports to itself de-bunk Peterson et al (2008) which is the main evidence base for the OP above. [The co-authors seem to have been overlooked by the OP above who call it Peterson 2008.]  In directly challenging Peterson et al, the Wattsupian denier reclasifies 20% of the surveyed papers cited by Peterson et al  (14 of the 66 re-assessed with 5 Peterson et al citations not assessed) and thus attempts to convert the result from 7 'cooling', 20 'neutral' and 44 'warming' into 16 'cooling', 19 'neutral' and 36 'warming'. This is not greating different and certainly does not support the contention that there was a scientific global cooling concensus during the 1970s.

    To provide more fire-power, the Wattsupian denilaist adds extra citations to the survey - two which he found for himself (again not a level of evidence that would change the Peterson et al result) and an additional 117 papers gleaned from an earlier denialist attempt to debunk Peterson et al. It is only with this extra denialist fire-power from 2016 that anything like the number of citations can be obtained to overcome the Peterson et al result. This 2016 nonsense has been debunked in a two-park SkS post here & here.

    The general nonsense in this 2016 denialist blather is possible best summed up by the denialistical use of the 1974 CIA document which considers the global food supply and within this considers climate as potentially a major factor. Global cooling is presented as a potential increase in risk to an adequate global food supply. There is no 'consensus' being waved that global cooling is expected. Instead they cite HH Lamb but ignore Lamb's view at that time in the mid-1970s that "On balance, the effects of increased carbon dioxide on climate is almost certainly in the direction of warming but is probably much smaller than the estimates which have commonly been accepted." As this may sound itself a little 'denialist' to modern ears, I should all that the 1977 book containing this quote had added into its 1984 preface:-

    "It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.” [my bold]

    The evidence-base for the CIA document is set out in its Annex II is based on the work of one scientist, Reid Bryson who did continue to find it beyond his abilities to accept the idea of AGW as a problem that needed tackling. So even though the 1974 CIA document runs with global cooling, a worst-case scenario, there is no scientific consensus backing it up.

    The other study cited by the 2016 nonsense is Stewart & Glantz (1985) which talks of an emerging AGW-warming consensus but itself analyses the conclusions of a 1978 study on climate projection to the year 2000. This 1978 study would presumably have been advised by any 'cooling' concensus had such a thing existed in the mid-1970s. So their conclusions will be of interest:-

    "The derived climate scenarios manifest a broad range of perceptions about possible temperature trends to the end of this century, but suggest as most likely a climate resembling the average for the past 30 years.- Collectively, the respondents tended to anticipate a slight global warming rather than a cooling. More specifically, their assessments pointed toward only one chance in five that, changes in average global temperatures will fall outside the range of -0.3°C to +0.6°C, although any temperature change was generally perceived as-being amplified in the higher latitudes of both hemiipheres."

    So here the 1970s view was more towards 'warming' than 'cooling' although I note the 'warming' opinion prevailed as warming 1975-2000 was +0.5°C. 

    And today we see nothing but blather in that Nov 2018 Wattsupian whittering. It is ever thus there on the remote planetoid Wattsupia.

  36. Hi MA

    Thanks for the links and the post. Very interesting. The thing I find fascinating is that I started tackling the Wattsup post but came from a very different angle- though equally unimpressed by it. I think your approach and mine are complementary. Will try to post later.

     

    My interest was just how using some basic knowledge of science and careful reading of the Wattsup article meant I could identify numerous logical fallacies and inaccuracies. It would be interesting to see what you make of my thoughts. 

Prev  1  2  

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2020 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us