Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Max Carnage

Did 1970s scientists predict global cooling?

81 posts in this topic

No, it looks like it was a mini media beat-up, which has been grossly exaggerated by climate change deniers*.

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production":

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Times Magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.html

* I persist in using this word rather than 'skeptics' because the bulk of them have more in common with 'evolution-skeptics' (more accurately: young earth creationists), than true skeptics/sceptics.

On that note, I've been reading http://joannenova.com.au/ and am absolutely dismayed (but not surprised) by the absolute certainty and arrogant ignorance of the majority of posters there. Check it out. Trawl through the archives for the odd one out where somebody who actually understands the scientific method and is familiar the evidence for AGW fronts Joanne Nova...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it looks like it was a mini media beat-up, which has been grossly exaggerated by climate change deniers*.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.html

* I persist in using this word rather than 'skeptics' because the bulk of them have more in common with 'evolution-skeptics' (more accurately: young earth creationists), than true skeptics/sceptics.

On that note, I've been reading http://joannenova.com.au/ and am absolutely dismayed (but not surprised) by the absolute certainty and arrogant ignorance of the majority of posters there. Check it out. Trawl through the archives for the odd one out where somebody who actually understands the scientific method and is familiar the evidence for AGW fronts Joanne Nova...

Here's an exchange between JoNova and Skeptico

I recently received an email from Joanne Nova, who writes a blog where she claims global warming isn’t caused by human created greenhouse gas emissions. In her first email to me she wrote “there is no empirical evidence left that supports the theory that man made CO2 makes much difference to the climate.” Note, “no empirical evidence”, not “I disagree with the evidence”, or “there is contrary evidence” – but there is no evidence. None! She emailed me to ask why I had come to a different conclusion from her.

Why do I accept global warming science as being true? Well, it’s partly because I followed the many claims of the global warming “skeptics,” and although their arguments had been debunked numerous times by experts (for example, read RealClimate’s Responses to common contrarian arguments), the so-called skeptics kept repeating the already debunked arguments. After a while you just start thinking, “but that’s been explained already,” and stop taking those people seriously. So that would be my initial reason. But the other main reason would have been the thousands of articles published every year in peer reviewed scientific journals, virtually all of them supporting the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. And it’s also because of the denier tactics employed by the “skeptics”. (More on this later.) Nova writes back that this is argument from authority, and that it’s intellectually lazy to argue this way. Well, I disagree.

…a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true.

What we have here is trust in the scientific method. And we trust it because we have reason to believe it works – just look around you. (You’re reading this on a computer aren’t you?) And on a blog that promotes science and the scientific method, I’d have to be pretty perverse, or have a very good reason, to oppose thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers.

Note that what we should have is trust in science. This is not the same as faith, which is what Nova claimed I have. Faith is belief without evidence, while trust is acceptance of something based on what we have experienced before – ie what has worked and what has been right. In other words, trust of the scientific method is based on evidence that it works. Claiming that trust and faith are the same thing is the fallacy of equivocation that I have written about before. The fallacy is to use the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time. Implying that trust is the same as faith is actually the classic example I gave two years ago to explain the fallacy. Hilariously, Nova responded to this point with dictionary definitions of trust, that I think were supposed to show that trust can be defined in the same way as faith. But duh, that’s the point. They can be defined in the same way. But they can also be defined differently. And employing these ambiguous definitions s how they can be used to make a fallacious argument. Just because a dictionary gives definitions of the two words, and some of the definitions are similar, that doesn’t mean that trust in the scientific method is the same as faith. Nova even debunked her own point by writing “Planes don't fly on "trust". They fly on physics.” Yes. But I don’t need to understand the physics to get on a plane. I get on a plane because I trust that planes fly – and that trust is based on what we see in the real world (all those planes in the sky) not on faith.

Five other tactics commonly used by denialists are also discussed.

1. Conspiracy

2. Selectivity (cherry-picking)

3. Fake experts

4. Impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts)

5. General fallacies of logic.

She's just not credible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the Skeptico link.

She's just not credible

No, she's not, especially when fronted by somebody who is less than clueless. I'm still searching for a lovely exchange between her/Valentine and a bloke called David. It was pretty funny.

I'm also amused by the repeated claims of her supporters that The Sceptics Handbook is totally backed by peer-reviewed scientific literature. The actual document cites no literature. The list of sources is here:

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/links/

And it's not peer-reviewed scientific literature.

The booklet is poorly written and chock-a-block full of the fallacies that Joanne is addicted to citing back at her critics. It begins (first 2 pages):

The bottom Line Is Simple

Don't fall for the "complexity" argument or accept vague answers. The climate is complex, but the only thing that matters here is whether adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the world much warmer.

Everything hinges on this one question. If carbon dioxide is not a significant cause, then carbon sequestration, cap-and-trade, emissions trading, and the Kyoto agreement are a waste of time and money. All of them divert resources away from things that matter--like finding a cure for cancer or feeding Somali babies. Having a real debate IS the best thing for the environment.

The Surgical Strike

1: Stick to the four points that matter

There is only one question and four points worth discussing. Every time you allow the conversation to stray, you get stuck in a dead end and miss the chance to definitively expose the lack of evidence that carbon is "bad".

2: Ask questions

Non-believers don't have to prove anything. Skeptics are not asking the world for money or poweer. Believers need to explain their case, so let them do the talking. As long as the question you asked doesn't get resolved, repeat it.

3: Greenhouse and global warming are different

Don't let people confuse global warming with greenhouse gases. Mixing these two different topics has confounded the debate. Proof of global warming is not proof that greenhouse gases caused that warming.

4: Deal with the bully-boy

It's entirely reasonable to ask for evidence. If you are met with dismissive, intimidatory, or bullying behaviour, don't ignore it. Ask them why they're not willing to explain their case. In scientific discussions, no theory is sacrosanct. Dogma belongs in religions.

NOTE: "Carbon," "carbon dioxide," and "CO2" are all used interchangeably here for the sake of simplicity, as with public use (but not in scientific practice).

I'm tempted to pull this crap apart piece by piece, but it strikes me that somebody else probably has already bothered (will google) and that I wouldn't know where to begin. Perhaps with a rebuttal of 1] by pointing out that medical doctors would attest to the "bad" effects of excess carbon dioxide on the human body. Or that claiming AGW does not exist is a belief position, not a 'skeptical' one....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this post from 'Dunc' on Skeptico:

I actually argue that AGW is not easy to falsify.
AGW is perfectly easy to falsify in theory - there are at least 4 different ways you could do it. You could demonstrate that global mean temperatures aren't on a rising trend. You could demonstrate that CO2 levels aren't on a rising trend. You could demonstrate that human activity isn't driving the CO2 trend (in which case you'd need to explain where all the CO2 we know we're producing is going, and where the excess CO2 we measure is coming from). Finally, you could demonstrate that CO2 isn't driving the temperature trend (in which case you'd need to explain why CO2 isn't behaving the way that basic physics says it should, and what is actually driving the warming). Any one of those would falsify the theory.

It's only difficult to falsify in practice because none of those things are actually true.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html?cid=6a00d83451df0c69e20105371fc96a970b#comment-6a00d83451df0c69e20105371fc96a970b
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a child in the mid 70s, I can remember the stories about another possible ice age. They probably only ran for about a year, then faded into history, and I don't think there was the near universal scientific agreement that AGW has. It fitted more into the category of stories about the Bermuda Triangle, lost city of Atlantis and the like, which were also popular at the time.

Global warming on the other hand, reminds me much more of the connection of smoking with cancer and heart disease etc. What was initially a fringe view, slowly gathered more and more scientific support based on the strength of the evidence, and attempts to curb peoples use of tobacco was vigorously defended and attacked the whole way (still is) by the vested financial interests of the tobacco companies, whose profits were threatened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Global Warming theory of increasing CO2 levels started in the 1890's. By the 50's and 60's it had broad acceptance. Global Warming was still the majority view in the 1970's. But Global Cooling theory had 15 mins of fame.

I still got a book I received in 1968 that illustrated the GW theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's even older than I thought. I knew they were talking about it as far back as the 50s, but over a century ago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the "taxpayers on the hook" aspect you care about most isn't it?

I can see your logic regarding, for example, restaurant hygiene and so on to a degree. I disagree with your opinion in those cases because I think the impediment to business is not as bad as "businesses learning through food poisoning their customers". I agree in theory that any person running a business should be aware of the catastrophic failure of their business should they almost go out of their way to ensure it fails.

I agree that many politicians are corrupt in particular areas, especially at low level stuff like mayor or whatever.

I am not 100% sure that taking that same thinking and applying it to a huge number of politically incompetent and financially incompetent people is the best.

If the guys that chose to be climate scientists generally agree your theory means they took a job which would never make money and ten were swayed by money.

Doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

The risk / reward profile is just too bad for me to assume they are all lying.

  • If they are lying and we do nothing life continues
  • If they are lying and we do something (at exorbitant cost in your thinking) we at least get some cool sh*t when we come out of that minor waste of money
  • If they are telling the truth and we something we get cool sh*t and survive
  • if they are telling the truth and we do nothing we die

I don't really see any other options and I, for one, am not going to go and learn to be a climate scientist. I am pretty sure you aren't either.

So use the skills you have, you're a project manager, and apply them to the objective scenarios. Harvey just cost around 100-200 million dollars. Irma is on the way. If it even remotely does the same thing that counts as exorbitant in my books. If the climate scientists are right this is likely what we are going to see a lot of.

I guess everyone gets a job but it isn't a cool job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are good reasons to stop burning fossil fuel apart from global warming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, zaph said:

There are good reasons to stop burning fossil fuel apart from global warming. 

That's included in my "we get cool sh*t and survive" umbrella :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, tor said:

It is the "taxpayers on the hook" aspect you care about most isn't it?

I can see your logic regarding, for example, restaurant hygiene and so on to a degree. I disagree with your opinion in those cases because I think the impediment to business is not as bad as "businesses learning through food poisoning their customers". I agree in theory that any person running a business should be aware of the catastrophic failure of their business should they almost go out of their way to ensure it fails.

I agree that many politicians are corrupt in particular areas, especially at low level stuff like mayor or whatever.

I am not 100% sure that taking that same thinking and applying it to a huge number of politically incompetent and financially incompetent people is the best.

If the guys that chose to be climate scientists generally agree your theory means they took a job which would never make money and ten were swayed by money.

Doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

The risk / reward profile is just too bad for me to assume they are all lying.

  • If they are lying and we do nothing life continues
  • If they are lying and we do something (at exorbitant cost in your thinking) we at least get some cool sh*t when we come out of that minor waste of money
  • If they are telling the truth and we something we get cool sh*t and survive
  • if they are telling the truth and we do nothing we die

I don't really see any other options and I, for one, am not going to go and learn to be a climate scientist. I am pretty sure you aren't either.

So use the skills you have, you're a project manager, and apply them to the objective scenarios. Harvey just cost around 100-200 million dollars. Irma is on the way. If it even remotely does the same thing that counts as exorbitant in my books. If the climate scientists are right this is likely what we are going to see a lot of.

I guess everyone gets a job but it isn't a cool job.

Throughout history, the chicken littles tend to be proven wrong. How many times did people cry that we'd run out of energy. Each time there have been quantum technological changes that made a theoretical disaster disappear. The cold, hard facts are simple for anybody who opens their eyes:

  • countries in heavy deficit are being able to spend squillions on measures for a cause that may prove yet again to be pure BS,
  • the poorest and most vulnerable are struggling to pay for electricity due to ever rising prices, when this country is blessed with having natural resources which should translate to having amongst the cheapest and reliable energy countries. Other countries know this, which is why they keep buying those natural resources from us, leaving our economy at a competitive disadvantage due to higher energy costs,
  • Renewables are unable to provide base load, hence the expensive need to run dual systems.

But don't let those facts get in the way of playing with cool sh!t.

FFS. If only there was a way for price of stupidity to be paid only by the stupid, instead than by all of us! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Throughout history, the chicken littles tend to be proven wrong. How many times did people cry that we'd run out of energy. Each time there have been quantum technological changes that made a theoretical disaster disappear. The cold, hard facts are simple for anybody who opens their eyes:

  • countries in heavy deficit are being able to spend squillions on measures for a cause that may prove yet again to be pure BS,
  • the poorest and most vulnerable are struggling to pay for electricity due to ever rising prices, when this country is blessed with having natural resources which should translate to having amongst the cheapest and reliable energy countries. Other countries know this, which is why they keep buying those natural resources from us, leaving our economy at a competitive disadvantage due to higher energy costs,
  • Renewables are unable to provide base load, hence the expensive need to run dual systems.

But don't let those facts get in the way of playing with cool sh!t.

FFS. If only there was a way for price of stupidity to be paid only by the stupid, instead than by all of us! 

 

Typo above. It should read:

countries in heavy deficit are being   able asked to spend 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and because government's have stalled on building modern electricity generators using reliable & cheap natural resources, we now have SA & Tasmania using diesel, which would be one of the more expensive and polluting sources for electricity generation. We also have Truffles begging AGL to not close Liddell, which is one of the oldest plants, because it has finally dawned that renewables were not going to make up the loss in base load.

As I said above, If only there was a way for price of stupidity to be paid only by the stupid, instead than by all of us! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking of getting a wood fireplace. I'm not sure where I'll put the carbon. I'm thinking I might use it to add some bubbles to my moonshine. It's going to be quite a few trips on my bicycle to get wood. Lucky winter only lasts a month in Brisbane. 

Are you even allowed to get a fireplace now?

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cobran20 said:
  • Renewables are unable to provide base load, hence the expensive need to run dual systems.
 

Solar certainly can't but wind can.

What about 'storing' power that the sun generates so it can be used at night? Brisbane's water supply is mostly from a two dam system. Pump the water from the lower dam to the upper dam with solar. Empty the top dam into the bottom one at night producing hydro (power, not pot). #

# I have no idea whether this would provide enough power for Brisbane at night. Just an idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, zaph said:

Solar certainly can't but wind can.

Perhaps if:

  • there is any wind blowing at the time and
  • it is not too strong such that the turbine will catch on fire

Just ask the SA government after their blackouts. Also, the further the distance between source of the electricity and where it is required, the more inefficient it gets as you can lose up to 30% across those long distance wires across states. Just ask an electrical engineer (a rep from the engineers association was interviewed about it on ABC24 this afternoon).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" FFS. If only there was a way for price of stupidity to be paid only by the stupid, instead than by all of us! "

I believe there is a way which will make you happy unless they are right.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/sa-government-announces-tesla-and-neoen-will-build-100mw-giant-battery-as-part-of-its-energy-security-plan/news-story/16bd5b897dc4841029cad7732c5c92b3?nk=5fbaa0f3e6f6e0e41770738618ec9f36-1504704316

http://fortune.com/2017/09/06/mars-pledge-one-billion-fight-climate-change/

I am sure those exceedingly rich guys are doing it for altruistic reasons or something, or maybe they are stupid and all their money is just because they got lucky...

Regardless if you are personally positioning yourself to make money I suspect that an ideological crusade against climate change is going to work.

If you just want to bitch that the world would be better if you were in control I think you are safe. No one is ever going to let you be in control. So you will be able to happily bitch for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tor said:

" FFS. If only there was a way for price of stupidity to be paid only by the stupid, instead than by all of us! "

I believe there is a way which will make you happy unless they are right.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/sa-government-announces-tesla-and-neoen-will-build-100mw-giant-battery-as-part-of-its-energy-security-plan/news-story/16bd5b897dc4841029cad7732c5c92b3?nk=5fbaa0f3e6f6e0e41770738618ec9f36-1504704316

http://fortune.com/2017/09/06/mars-pledge-one-billion-fight-climate-change/

I am sure those exceedingly rich guys are doing it for altruistic reasons or something, or maybe they are stupid and all their money is just because they got lucky...

Regardless if you are personally positioning yourself to make money I suspect that an ideological crusade against climate change is going to work.

If you just want to bitch that the world would be better if you were in control I think you are safe. No one is ever going to let you be in control. So you will be able to happily bitch for a long time.

Of course they're not doing it for altruistic purposes. They want to ride a massive government gravy train or are you telling me that you never read that Musk's business empire survives on government subsidies. How about we cutoff all government subsidies to all energy sources and let the most reliable, efficient & cost effective survive? I'll bet money on natural resources.

BTW, rich does not mean that you're not gullible to propaganda. If billionaires want to sink their own money in a business that is not being subsidised by taxpayers, then it is free enterprise  - they deserve all the profits ... and losses, without support from taxpayers.

Unfortunately, I don't have time on my side to wait until the current lot of 'experts' end up with egg on their face, like the last batch in the 1970's with their imminent Ice Age theory.

But I'd appreciate if I didn't have to pay for stupids' stupidity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists were wrong then so they're wrong now...

By that logic the flat earther's were wrong so the earth isn't a sphere. 

There were far more published papers in the seventies predicting warming than an ice age. 6 times as many. They were less newsworthy however.

 

 

IMG_2017.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, staringclown said:

Scientists were wrong then so they're wrong now...

By that logic the flat earther's were wrong so the earth isn't a sphere. 

There were far more published papers in the seventies predicting warming than an ice age. 6 times as many. They were less newsworthy however.

 

 

IMG_2017.JPG

So what gives you the overwhelming confidence that this time is different? Is everything about climatology now known 100%,beyond any reasonable doubt?

BTW, there are also scientists who disagree with the sheeple, but their voices get drowned by the PC crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need confidence. I've got evidence. 

Nothing in science is 100% certain. Science doesn't deal in certainties. It deals with evidence and probabilities. Still you can achieve 95% certainty using statistics. In the same way that juries convict criminals 100% proof isn't required. If a reasonable doubt is all you require then you don't have one in the global warming debate. 

I always enjoy hearing from the genuine skeptics. The ones that aren't in the paid employment of the fossil fuel industry and are qualified in the field. Got any links?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

I don't need confidence. I've got evidence.

That's about what they said 40 years ago, except that they quoted the events like extreme cold winters and other 'hard facts' that  proved to be pure, unadulterated BS.

Here is an example of an skeptic, nobody in particular other than a nobel laureate in physics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=SXxHfb66ZgM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you actually watch the video? 

Leaving aside the guy is a physicist with expertise in superconductors rather than climate science, he says at the beginning that he googled climate science for half a day to examine the topic. No published papers. Just google. For half a day. He must be be some kind of savant.

I'll see your Nobel laureate and raise you one. Only mine won theirs for climate science.

http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/31236/atmospheric-chemistry-and-climate-in-the-anthropocene-2012

http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/31331/the-science-and-policy-of-climate-change-2012

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0