It wasn't that long ago that the "Experts" were Crying, "Ice Age"...

[Old Rocks]

The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com

Interesting... I am Sure, in Spite of the Record Cold we are having in Denver Right now and have been since October and Following an Abnormally Cool Summer, that "Global Warming" is still Coming...

Or MAYBE the "Experts" were Right back in the 70's...

Either way, let's Punish our Country Economically!



peace...

Crock of shit.

Analysis of Lowell Ponte: The Cooling; by WMC

Pontes Misuse of the 1975 NAS report
Ponte says (p4) "Are we at the dawn of a new Ice Age? In 1975 the US National Academy of Sciences issued a report saying that if the present cooling trend continues, there is a "finite" chance an Ice Age could begin "within 100 years". How much chance? The NAS panel...set the odds of this happening at no better than one in 10,000. The number was not random [Oh good, thats a relief - WMC]. As their report noted, Earths climate in the past has tended to change in fairly regular cycles, and if the past patterns continue we should now be entering a 10,000 year period of cooling climate.
The NAS report was shocking...".

The NAS report was not shocking. Anyone reading it would be more likely to describe it as "soporific". See here for some notes I made from that report. But to quote some of it here:

"The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know" (from the intro; note how how this resembles Brysons initial words)
The recommendations were: Establish National climatic research program; Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man; Develope Climatic index monitoring program; Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs; Adoption and development of International climatic research program; Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network. There was no recommendation for action

 

[Old Rocks]

The reality of who said what and when in science concerning the 1970's "cooling".

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

The 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE: A program for action
Review by W M Connolley
This little-read report appears to serve as a useful summary of the state of opinion at the time (aside: I was prompted to read this by someone who thought the report supported the ice-age-was-predicted threoy [1]: as all too often happens, the report when actually read does no such thing...), which opinion was (my summary) "we can't predict climate yet, we need more research".
I know of only two places where this report is referred to in "current" debate (you know others? good: mail me: [email protected]): the page from the Cato Institute (discussed on the main page, the main quote from which is "There was even a report by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reaching its usual ambiguous conclusions"), and in a page from sepp [remember, children, a link from this page does not imply endorsement of the contents...], an excerpt from which is below:

From http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/sciaddheat.html http://www.sepp.org/key issues/glwarm/sciaddheat.html:


But this exaggerated concern about global warming contrasts sharply with an earlier NAS/NRC report, "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action." There, in 1975, the NAS "experts" exhibited the same hysterical fears—-this time, however, asserting a "finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years."
The 1975 NAS panel claimed to have good reason for their fears: Global temperatures had been in steady decline since the 1940s. They considered the preceding period of warming, between 1860 and 1940, as "unusual," following as it did the "Little Ice Age," which had lasted from 1430 to 1850.


This is a gross misrepresentation of the 1975 NAS report; the Cato summary is more accurate.

But anyway, what about the report itself...?
Ah yes, I'm glad you asked. OK, the SEPP stuff about hysterical fears is nonsense, the report is a calm, mannered assessment of the science.
Let's write its ISBN, so you can find it: 0-309-02323-8.

From the foreword (by V E Suomi, Chair of the US Committee for GARP):

"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate...".

I believe that this is an accurate assessment of the state of knowledge at the time.

From the preface (by W L Gates and Y Mintz):

"Our response to the concerns [about climate variations [WMC]] is the proposal of a major new program of reseach designed to increase our understanding of climatic change and to lay the foundation for its prediction".

So far so good: the report doesn't believe prediction can yet be done, and its response is to recommend more research, not to make predictions.

From the start of the Introduction:

"Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know".

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, the fact that CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas is settled science. The fact that the earth is warmer when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, is also settled science. Science that has been settled for over 100 years.

The fact that when there is a sudden increase in CO2, one that is strong enough to warm the oceans and create the outgassing of the CH4 clathrates, have always been times of great environmental stress is also settled science.

That the lakes in the yedoma in Siberia and in the permafrost in North America are outgassing major amounts of CH4 is also a fact. And that the clathrates in the Artic Ocean have also started to outgas is a fact.

The Arctic Ocean is losing its ice cover, which reflects 90% of the sunlight striking it, and the open water in its place absorbs 90% of the sunlight striking it. So, for the last three years we have been losing ice volume at a catastrophic rate.

Warmer water warming a warmer land, with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increasing the heat of the atmosphere. And a time bomb of clathrates that have been accumulating for millions of years.

Going to be some interesting times for your children and grandchildren. Those that survive, that is.

 

[mal]

The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com

Interesting... I am Sure, in Spite of the Record Cold we are having in Denver Right now and have been since October and Following an Abnormally Cool Summer, that "Global Warming" is still Coming...

Or MAYBE the "Experts" were Right back in the 70's...

Either way, let's Punish our Country Economically!



peace...

Crock of shit.

Analysis of Lowell Ponte: The Cooling; by WMC

Pontes Misuse of the 1975 NAS report
Ponte says (p4) "Are we at the dawn of a new Ice Age? In 1975 the US National Academy of Sciences issued a report saying that if the present cooling trend continues, there is a "finite" chance an Ice Age could begin "within 100 years". How much chance? The NAS panel...set the odds of this happening at no better than one in 10,000. The number was not random [Oh good, thats a relief - WMC]. As their report noted, Earths climate in the past has tended to change in fairly regular cycles, and if the past patterns continue we should now be entering a 10,000 year period of cooling climate.
The NAS report was shocking...".

The NAS report was not shocking. Anyone reading it would be more likely to describe it as "soporific". See here for some notes I made from that report. But to quote some of it here:

"The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know" (from the intro; note how how this resembles Brysons initial words)
The recommendations were: Establish National climatic research program; Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man; Develope Climatic index monitoring program; Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs; Adoption and development of International climatic research program; Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network. There was no recommendation for action

Tell me a Story about Greenland...



peace...

 

[edthecynic]

The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com

Interesting... I am Sure, in Spite of the Record Cold we are having in Denver Right now and have been since October and Following an Abnormally Cool Summer, that "Global Warming" is still Coming...

Or MAYBE the "Experts" were Right back in the 70's...

Either way, let's Punish our Country Economically!



peace...

Same lies, different day.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

Scientific studies in the 1970's re global cooling
Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2.

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).

 

[Old Rocks]

The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com

Interesting... I am Sure, in Spite of the Record Cold we are having in Denver Right now and have been since October and Following an Abnormally Cool Summer, that "Global Warming" is still Coming...

Or MAYBE the "Experts" were Right back in the 70's...

Either way, let's Punish our Country Economically!



peace...

Crock of shit.

Analysis of Lowell Ponte: The Cooling; by WMC

Pontes Misuse of the 1975 NAS report
Ponte says (p4) "Are we at the dawn of a new Ice Age? In 1975 the US National Academy of Sciences issued a report saying that if the present cooling trend continues, there is a "finite" chance an Ice Age could begin "within 100 years". How much chance? The NAS panel...set the odds of this happening at no better than one in 10,000. The number was not random [Oh good, thats a relief - WMC]. As their report noted, Earths climate in the past has tended to change in fairly regular cycles, and if the past patterns continue we should now be entering a 10,000 year period of cooling climate.
The NAS report was shocking...".

The NAS report was not shocking. Anyone reading it would be more likely to describe it as "soporific". See here for some notes I made from that report. But to quote some of it here:

"The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know" (from the intro; note how how this resembles Brysons initial words)
The recommendations were: Establish National climatic research program; Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man; Develope Climatic index monitoring program; Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs; Adoption and development of International climatic research program; Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network. There was no recommendation for action

Tell me a Story about Greenland...



peace...

Why should I do that? Jared Diamond has already done it far better in his book, 'Collapse', than I ever could.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com

Interesting... I am Sure, in Spite of the Record Cold we are having in Denver Right now and have been since October and Following an Abnormally Cool Summer, that "Global Warming" is still Coming...

Or MAYBE the "Experts" were Right back in the 70's...

Either way, let's Punish our Country Economically!



peace...

The article you link has already been shown to be a fraud. On the first page there is a direct quote:

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

The phrase ""During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end..." does not actually exist in the article cited. It is in fact, a combination of two phrases from two different articles. The first sentence: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade." is from the cited 1974 report, but the remainder of the quote is from a 1972 article.


The author quite literally has picked and chosen the phrases he likes from two different paragraphs, and pasted them together into one paragraph, and falsely claimed the one paragraph to be from a single paper.


This just shows you the lengths some people are willing to go to spread lies. It also shows how ignorant most of the skeptic crowd is. They don't even bother to check the cited sources in anything they read. As long as it says what they like it to say, there's no reason to check the sources.


Not only that, but the author has failed to account for the erroneous quote, despite the repeated pointing out of this untruth in the comments section of same article by yours truly.

 

[Polaris]

The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com

Interesting... I am Sure, in Spite of the Record Cold we are having in Denver Right now and have been since October and Following an Abnormally Cool Summer, that "Global Warming" is still Coming...

Or MAYBE the "Experts" were Right back in the 70's...

Either way, let's Punish our Country Economically!



peace...

The article you link has already been shown to be a fraud. On the first page there is a direct quote:

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

The phrase ""During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end..." does not actually exist in the article cited. It is in fact, a combination of two phrases from two different articles. The first sentence: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade." is from the cited 1974 report, but the remainder of the quote is from a 1972 article.


The author quite literally has picked and chosen the phrases he likes from two different paragraphs, and pasted them together into one paragraph, and falsely claimed the one paragraph to be from a single paper.


This just shows you the lengths some people are willing to go to spread lies. It also shows how ignorant most of the skeptic crowd is. They don't even bother to check the cited sources in anything they read. As long as it says what they like it to say, there's no reason to check the sources.


Not only that, but the author has failed to account for the erroneous quote, despite the repeated pointing out of this untruth in the comments section of same article by yours truly.

Awesome post, SpidermanT. Completely pawned the science-deniers here. This is what we're up against: Big Oil (specifically Exxon-Mobile) has funded the real junk-science, feeding talking-points to conservative pundits to give to their willfully ignorant ditto-heads to parrot... and as a result there is huge public ignorance about global warming, and huge political inertia over responding to the threat.

What the science-denying fools in the conservative camp can't comprehend, is that long-term driven cooling patterns, and short-term AGW, can both be occuring. Since the 1970's, we've begun to get a handle on what causes the Ice Ages (there are about three separate astrophysical causes, probably the most important being the "wobble" in the Earth's rotational axis, that periodically causes the northern hemisphere to deflect more sunlight). AGW, on the other hand, is not an astrophysical phenomenon - it is an atmospheric one. Both effects can be going on at the same time.

But they are not occuring on the similar time-scales. Our species is conducting a radical experiment with our planet's atmosphere. Never before in the history of life on the planet (except perhaps with the extinction of the dinosaurs, if that was caused by volcanism) has so much GHG been pumped into the atmosphere, in so short a time. That a Greenhouse Effect is hightly likely to follow from this, is simply a matter of straightforward physics and chemistry.

Basic physics and chemistry. That's what you denying-parrots are working full-time to ignore. And why? Do you really not give a fuck about your grandchildren??

We are likely at the front-edge of a new Ice Age, but the effects of it are going to be marginal compared to the effects of AGW. The climate change that will occur as a result, will - as everyone who knows what they're talking about realizes - not result in a uniform warming of the planet. What we're doing, is kicking more energy into the atmosphere - that extra energy will result in a global average increase in temperature, but on the local level, it's just going to lead to more extreme weather events, to local climates out of balance - more droughts and dessication here, more flooding and erosion there; the melting of the northern ice-pack, but also the end of argriculture in Europe (one of the world's breadbaskets) because of Siberia-like climate that will descend there, when icemelt in the northern Atlantic shuts down the Gulf Stream...

This is the world (at it could get much worse - putting Bangladesh and the Netherlands underwater, for starters) that you idiot Cons who allow yourselves to be shills for Big Oil, are merrily leading us to. On behalf of humanity a hundred years from now, I'll say this to you: I hope you rot in hell.