Climate Change and its Effect on World Food
by Walter Orr Roberts Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
In February of 1972 earth-orbiting artificial satellites revealed the existence of a greatly increased area of the snow and ice cover of the north polar cap as compared to all previous years of space age observations. Some scientists believe that this may have presaged the onset of the dramatic climate anomalies of 1972 that brought far-reaching adversities to the world’s peoples. Moreover, there is mounting evidence that the bad climate of 1972 may be the forerunner of a long series of less favorable agricultural crop years that lie ahead for most world societies. Thus widespread food shortages threaten just at the same time that world populations are growing to new highs. Indeed, less favorable climate may be the new global norm. The Earth may have entered a new “little ice age”
There are strong signs that these recent climate disasters were not random deviations from the usual weather, but instead signals of the emergence of a new normal for world climates.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
- Toto Has Moved!
- Cooling Nuuk
- Escape The Heat At Your Local Movie Theater
- Charles Butler Interview – May 2, 2016
- Massive Greenland Fraud Is Rapidly Growing
- More Detail On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- 1995 IPCC Report Showed No Troposphere Warming From 1958 To 1995
- More On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- Climate Hustle Today
- On The Air Monday
- NOAA Quadrupling Radiosonde Temperatures By Data Tampering
- Skiing Is A Thing Of The Past
- Alarmist Brains Depleted Of Oxygen
- Climate Scam Being Driven By Politicians/Actors/Journalists
- 1905 : Valdez, Alaska Relocated Due To Glacial Melting
- Today’s Climate Fraud Winners – Science News
- Most Influential Climate Denier On Twitter
- SCIENCE : 230 Years Of Blaming White Men For Climate Change
- Battling Climate Misinformation In Santa Fe
- 1906 : Belief In Climate Change Is Due To Defective Memories
- Oswald’s Rifle?
- The Arctic Is Ice Free – How Can Sea Ice Be Declining?
- Climate Hustle Next Monday – One Night Only
- The Surface Temperature Record Is A Farce
- NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering
Join 1,961 other subscribers
All the global cooling research papers in the 70’s were peered reviewed and there was a 97% consensus. People who didn’t believe them were science deniers.
Okay – these are actual cited numbers.
There were six published papers pertaining to cooling in the 70’s decade (43 pertaining to warming)
Debate the validity of global warming all you like, but at the very least – attempt some integrity in the discussion.
NASA, NSF, NAS, CRU, CIA, NCAR, NOAA were all pushing the global cooling scare. They must have been lying, eh?
No, they were not. – and I was working at NCAR and going to college in the 70s. Even the above piece does not push global cooling. It’s pure conjecture on the part of Dr. Walters’ in his call for a concerted push for more study. He even states in the piece that scientists do not agree. I can tell you from personal experience, Dr Walters was not a proponent of global cooling, he was a scientist and proponent for more research funding.
Right. In 1974, Steven Schneider was frustrated that Nixon wouldn’t listen to his global cooling hype
Sorry JK, but I lived through the global cooling scare, and remember the hype. Your link is correct on one point, there was no consensus then, just as there is no consensus now. The media simply runs with their favorite doomsayers and does their best to scare humanity into submission.
Chicken Little will always get the press, while pragmatists will always get it right. Climates change, get over it.
I guess Leonard Nimoy hadn’t heard about the 88% consensus settled science that global warming was happening in the 70s.
Absolute truth is revealed at the end of that show in part 3 when another NCAR climatologist, Dr. Steven Schneider, comes on and says
“We can’t predict with any certainty what is happening to our own climatic future. How can we come along and intervene then in that ignorance?”
Since then we’ve seen the rise of the incomplete and inaccurate computer climate model, and the rise of a multitude of politicians and politician-scientists who have, or pretend to have, blind faith in what the models predict. They then go on to intervene by lobbying for and enacting idiotic laws, rules, and regulations to solve a problem that does not exist.
The absolute truth that “we can’t predict out climatic future with any certainty” remains as true today as it did back then in the 70s.
JK, I remember the “coming ice age” scare in the 1970s. We heard over and over again that aIr pollution was reducing the amount sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface, and a resumption of ice age conditions the imminent result. It was taught as gospel by science teachers, and the press ran many stories quoting top experts about the threat. We were warned frequently and vehemently that science told us that unless air pollution was quickly curbed we were likely to enter a new ice age, with catastrophic consequences for humanity. This 1974 CIA report summarized the prevailing view of leading scientists.
Prior to the ice age and acid rain scares, the standard remedy for protecting people from ground level air pollution caused by coal-fired electrical power plants and factories was simply to build very tall smokestacks. It worked, but it had side-effects, such as aerosols which cause cooling. So now we have scrubbers removing the pollutants at the stacks, and the climate is a bit warmer. But determining how much of that warming was caused by the reduction in air pollution is problematic.
It is certainly true that normal science and scientific theories change and evolve over time. A key difference between climate science now and it 1974 is there was not the documented fraud, data manipulation, intimidation and ideological agenda surrounding the issue then that we see now. Anyone who challenges the man-made global warming hypothesis is subject to all these challengers (and more!) even though the mounting data tends to support their claims. The good news is, in the end, science seems to always ultimately prevail.
Reblogged this on CACA.
The climationists deny any satellite data that predates their satellite era.
This can’t be true. Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo say global warming is unpaused and stuck in fast forward!
Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
New research by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research investigates how the warming of the Earth’s climate has behaved over the past 15 years compared with the previous few decades. They conclude that while the rate of increase of average global surface temperatures has slowed since 1998, melting of Arctic ice, rising sea levels, and warming oceans have continued apace.
you just used the phrases “CLIMATE” and “15 YEARS” together. Please Go look up what the definition of climate is. No, wait, I’ll save you the trouble.
.Climate (n): The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
15 YEARS in terms of the earth and it’s cooling patterns is not a long enough time to establish a statistically valid survey. Your reaching.
Don’t be ridiculous. Climate is a hurricane in New Jersey or a hot month in Moscow.
No, that is weather. Not climate.They are two totally separate events. Things like weather happen in the short term. Such as intense droughts lasting approximately a decade. Or heavy rainy periods lasing a few years. Intense weather patterns like seeing a high volume of hurricanes/tornadoes/thunder storms over some period.
The last ice age, at the EARLIEST approximations happened 10,000 years ago. How can you say that you took reading for 15 years and come anywhere close to comparing on a scale such as that?
The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. YOU DON’T HAVE ENOUGH DATA TO MAKE THAT CONCLUSION. STOP REACHING.
I thought climate was warm day in Australia. Bill McKibben told me.
Since the average global surface temperature is falling for 15 years, then how can Trenberth et al conclude there is a “rate of increase”? Have they flipped the chart or just flipped their wigs?
Of course if they used Fibonacci simple moving averages (SMA’s), then they’d find that the short period SMA’s (8 and 13) are heading down and will soon cross the longer period SMA’s (21 and 89). Anyone understanding statistics would then conclude the trend had changed from up to down. I haven’t got the unadjusted data to chart that but for those who have 150 years plus of global temperature averages, just add three SMA’s (8, 21 and 89) to the chart and I’m sure you’ll see a very intersting picture.
If possible Steven could post it. 8 will be down, 21 will be flatish and 89 might have a slight increase.
Trencberth is stuck in the dilemma of reality versus fiction. His fast forward is in a sort of star track way. You see but its a not there type of tinge. But ye if you belief you think its true. Also its the problem of the faulty data, if you alter the data more and more you get more and more away from reality. So if you use that data you will see a result thats way of whit reality. But yes you believe so it must be true.
Begs the questions, “Why is the left so obsessed with temperature? What do they have to gain from convincing us?”
The Progressives (left, right, center) use climate as a tool of oppression. Not unlike the charlatan who promised to take the sun away, during an eclipse, in order to gain power and control.
These Progressives seek the same result
The left seeks to find ways to control peoples’ lives, that’s what. And Climatistan scientists would seek and get grant money from the government to do more research. Money. Samoleans. Green. $$$
Conversely: What does the right stand to gain by denying APG? Nothing. There’s no political or personal economic benefit to denying AGP is not real. What economic benefit there would is would be for the taxpayer. What would AGP denying scientists gain? They certainly are not seeking government grants to continue research. They are motivated by the truth. Not by money.
To the left, everything is about money. Not their money, someone else’s money.
Oops. Wish I could edit that. Correction: “There’s no political or personal economic benefit by denying AGP.”
Ask AL Gore – he’s made billions…
Don, the more they can convince the masses, the more tax payer funding they will receive so they can remain employed. After all, if your research ultimately showed that global warming was insignificant or out of the control of mankind, do you think they would actually admit to this? What else can you do when you have $150K in college debt from a degree in Climatology and no one but the government (or government funded programs) will give you a job?
Follow the money.
Follow the $$.
From research grants to carbon credits to all of that money spent on renewable energy…
It’s big business and crony capitalism.
I sat in high school listening to this BS in the 70’s. Too much manmade pollution particulates in the atmosphere were filtering out sunlight causing Manmade Global Cooling. The same fool “scientist” James Hansen, working for NASA, was writing articles about this, now write articles on Global Warming. Fool me once, but never again.
There is a 1974 Newsweek article that suggested ‘fixes’ such as melting the polar ice caps by covering them with soot, or putting mirrors in space to reflect more sun to the early (I think now the clmate nuts want to use the same idea to reflect sun light AWAY from the earth)
Don, they get money to continue their research.
Scientists – although climate science fails the usually standard requirements of science and rules of causality – runs wherever the money is. There is little money to be had for those who stumble across contrary evidence.
I remember the global cooling scare also. I also remember that the best way to counteract the cooling was to increase regulation of corporations which caused the cooling, more taxes, and more government control. Then when the scare switched to global warming, the proposed solutions were exactly the same.
As Americans are trying to come to grips with mans (evil white man..spit spit) attack on our planet, reports are growing about an increased level of hate crimes against environment in US cities and rural areas. In Georgia, a man was arrested for screaming environmental slurs at the passing clouds and threatening them with a shotgun, while in other areas local residents were seen “accidentally” ramming trees, rocks, and flowery hedges with their cars, trucks, and SUVs.
DrudgeReport linked to this post for a short time last night via ClimateDepot. I hadn’t noticed before (new feature?) that ClimateDepot has comments, now up to 454 on this tidbit!