NCAR graph – newsweek_coolingworld
National Academy Of Sciences graph – Science News
Almost every major climate organization endorsed the 1970s ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.
The Windsor Star – Google News Archive Search
http://news.google.com/newspapers/
The Deseret News – Google News Archive Search
In the last decade, the Arctic ice and snow cap has expanded 12 per cent, and for the first time in this century. ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-05-21.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Cooling-Has-Next-Already-Begun/dp/013172312X
Monday, Jan. 31, 1977
WEATHER: The Big Freeze
Why had the rain turned white? Startled millionaires wintering in their baronial mansions in West Palm Beach, Fla., peered closer last week at the miracle that was falling from the skies and discovered—could it be?—yes, the substance was snow, the first ever reported there. Since mid-November, pedestrians in Dallas, unaccustomed to such hazards, have been slipping on sleet-slicked sidewalks. Meanwhile, a series of blizzards has smothered Buffalo this winter with an astonishing 126.6 in. of snow.
From the Dakotas and Minnesota, across the icy Great Lakes of the Middle West and down…
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,918620,00.html
For some strange reason, the alarmists like to “debunk” this by saying it was just one article in Time magazine that said an ice age was possibly coming. Seems they’re wrong (again).
No actually they don’t. There was a small faction of scientists that proposed this but they were still in minority. There are often competiting opinions on unsettled science — so what????
However, we have more than 40 years more data — and a lot better data since the satellite/computer age — the scientific consensus is always based upon the data available so this isn’t relevant any more — except to the deniers.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Thanks so much for proving Steve and Pinroot correct.
Nigel Calder who was there as was I does an even better job of proving you wrong.
SEE:
https://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/next-ice-age/
https://calderup.wordpress.com/tag/gerard-roe/
Who was Nigel Calder?
Weather Machine and the Threat of Ice
November 21, 1974
by Nigel Calder
http://www.amazon.com/Weather-Machine-Threat-Nigel-Calder/dp/0563126469
“scientific consensus”. You got to be kidding. The warmest must understand what a gross contradiction that phrase is. Or do they?
IT seems they overfixed global cooling in the seventies.what’s next global medium.
Who is “they”?????
See my answer above — there were scientists who interpreted data differently — they thought that the negative effects of pollution would outweigh global warming (even they understood the science behind global warming) but there wasn’t even a consensus.
Oh Elroy, just stop with the “scientific consensus” will you. You don’t understand either of those big,long multisyllable words, do you.
What a bunch of self important, puffed up morons we are! We know SO much! In fact, we are lucky to hit the floor with our own hats.
The same twits who were invested in Left Wing socialist soak-the-rich tax schemes, based on climate change in the ’70s, are at it again. Then, it was Global Cooling, the Second Ice Age, and other drivel. More recently we’ve had Global Warming… oops, none for 16 years… and now Climate Change. Funny how the political prescriptions never change, though. Tax the West, send money to the Third World… blah, blah, blah… and all with a huge pit stop for the money at some endless series of bureaucracies, where it can be, uhm, diverted into God knows what.
Yep, we are very, very smart.
You seem to have a politcal response to a scientific issue and very little understanding of the science itself.
Please educate yourself — there’s a lot of learning that you need to do before you can speak intelligently on the subject.
Which are the links to the various scientific organizations saying this? Those would be especially damning.
“Almost every major climate organization endorsed the 1970s ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.” I did see the CIA one.
Al Gore didn’t invent the Internet until the 1990s.
Did you actually read the news articles I posted?
No, no! The 1970s ice age scare never happened! Comrade Connolley says so, and Comrade Connolley is always right!
Hubert Lamb got it right. He was just a bit off with his timing …
… the climate may warm up again but only for a short period of decades …
the warming happened quicker than he thought: we’ll see whether the cooling occurs.
J.S. Sawyer of the Met Office published a paper called http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/Sawyer_Nature_1972.pdf in Nature in 1972, forecasting global warming of 0.6 degrees C by the year 2000 based on climate modelling by Manabe and Wetherald.
The actual warming was about 0.5 degrees C – so Sawyer’s forecast of warming in the early 1970s was pretty good, and demonstrated the success of the early climate models.
In 1988, James Hansen’s model forecast 1.3C warming by 2010, and demonstrated that climate models are close to useless.
The denier consensus seems to be that the models don’t work, therefore climate change doesn’t exist.
No model has predicted an NFL season — or March Madness — therefore by the same logic, these don’t exist either.
Models exist as hypotheses for all the variables — but they don’t refute the basic underlying scientific principles if they aren’t totally accurate.
Moron alert
And what did that same model predict by 2013? I’m suspecting the model is then not so good.
J.S. Sawyer of the Met Office published a paper called Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect in Nature in 1972, forecasting global warming of 0.6 degrees C by the year 2000 based on climate modelling by Manabe and Wetherald.
The actual warming was about 0.5 degrees C – so Sawyer’s forecast of warming in the early 1970s was pretty good, and demonstrated the success of the early climate models.
In 1988, James Hansen’s model forecast 1.3C warming by 2010, and demonstrated that climate models are close to useless.
Actually I just read the paper Betts linked to and it pretty much perfectly encapsulates the sceptical position. Somewhere between 1.3C – 2.4C of warming for a doubling of CO2. Lack of recent evidence for increases in atmospheric water vapour puts the range closer to 1.3C. Translation: global warming will be minor and therefore most likely a net benefit to the planet.
The other observation is that this paper from 1972 sounds exactly like the papers I’ve read over the last few years. Or in other words, climatology doesn’t appear to have progressed very much at all in 40 years. 🙁
Interesting paper here, peer reviewed by James Hansen IIRC:
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!
same b.s. for global warming scare…it’s always fear about something or other meanwhile the perpetrators of these hoaxes make billions off of the fkn stupid people who believe this non stop bullshit.
Great research, thank you, but one constructive criticism: unless I missed something in my quick skim of the CIA report you linked to, it was preliminary work, was really pretty balanced, and focused on climate change, not cooling.
So what’s your point? Scientists were wrong then therefore they’re wrong now?
Well, what has happened that the claim would happen due to warming?
Is there still Ice in the Arctic? Yes and it’s been increasing for several years now. The Greenland ice sheet is increasing not declining.
Has the rate of sea level rise increased? Nope it hasn’t and in fact it may even be declining some.
Has the upper troposphere heated up? Nope! Nobody can find the the predicted heat where it was predicted to be according to their claims developed from their models.
Are the Polar bears dying off? Nope, they are doing fine.
Has tornado incidence and severity increased in the US as predicted? Nope! In fact we have been experiencing just the opposite over the last 3 years.
Has Atlantic hurricane incidence or severity increased as was predicted? Nope! Once again what has happened is just the exact opposite. Over all tropical storm activity has been well below average for several years in a row and the United States has not had a major storm impact it’s shores in nearly a decade. Nobody alive has experienced such a hiatus.
So tell me what calamities or effects that were predicted by the models have actually occurred?
The evidence for the 1970’s ice age scare is irrefutable…
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
Here is one of many peer reviewed papers predicting a coming ice age.
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.
Abstract.
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Becuase 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 deg.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.
The rate at which human activities may be inadvertently modifying the climate of Earth has become a problem of serious concern . In the last few decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to have increased by 7 percent . During the same period, the aerosol content of the lower atmosphere may have been augmented by as much as 100 percent .
How have these changes in the composition of the atmosphere affected the climate of the globe? More importantly, is it possible that a continued increase in the CO2 and dust content of the atmosphere at the present rate will produce such large-scale effects on the global temperature that the process may run away, with the planet Earth eventually becoming as hot as Venus (700 deg. K.) or as cold as Mars (230 deg. K.)?
We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Those results were bases on a climate model developed by none other than James Hansen, incidentally.
Not to mention Schneider!
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~ Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
Yep, that’s the one…
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER! CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER! SOMEONE CALL THE THOUGHT POLICE!!!