There's no doubt about the actual .5 degree or so of global cooling from the early 1940's to the late 1970s & there was a lot of research being done about causes & possible solutions but I wouldn't call it a "scare".
This was the era of the confident "can do" generation that had recently defeated the Nazi's, defeated polio, invented birth control & sent 6 Americans to walk on the moon so all of the research was about how to stop the 30 year global cooling trend.
The big "scare" at that time period was the red scare since 70% of the worlds population was under communist control & it was thought the "Red's" had the hardware to destroy the remaining 30% of us.
Global cooling in the 70's may have actually greatly contributed to reversing the red scare when it caused nearly all the Russian wheat crop to fail for several years & they were saved from mass starvation
by the U.S. agreeing to suspend its embargo & sell surplus grain to the "evil empire".
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/s...
At the time (the 1970's) there were indications that a slow retrograde in temperatures was in progress. There are a dozen different dynamics and sub dynamics involved, some subtle and some more overt. It's likely that these dynamics are still in motion. But....at the time the effect of CO2 in the mix of dynamics wasn't well researched or appreciated.
By 1960 when I was a serving as a US navy meteorologist several papers concerning the rise of CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' and the effect those gases would have on atmospheric temperatures were published. At the time the CO2 index stood at a manageable 360ppm... enough to counteract the 'cooling effects' of other indicators. The indication was that any excessive retained heat would flow to warm seawater and to melt ice with just enough left over to ward off any excessive 'cooling' leading to another 'Ice age'. The heat sink effect of seawater and ice was considered massive enough to maintain a steady environment for centuries.
Basically that's what we've seen happening. However at this time the CO2 index has advanced to just under 400ppm and the slow, almost balanced heating and cooling dynamic is now on the side of the heating dynamic, the cooling dynamic being totally over powered by an ever more robust 'greenhouse effect'. At 450ppm the greenhouse effect reaches a critical point of a possible runaway greenhouse effect...at the current rate of increase that will happen by 2030. The 'scare' of the 1970's opened the discussion, but the conversation has moved way passed that. Climate change toward a warmer world is real and ongoing... the deniers are simply wrong!
Here is the report that the CIA wrote about their concern about Global Cooling:
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/...
If you don't want to read the report, here are the pictures and a summary:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/25/th...
I'm sure you'll disagree with the website...but the facts and the report stand.
It must be wonderful to be able to read just the headline of an article and be an expert on everything. If you had actually read the articles in the 1970's you would know that they were predicting cooling if nothing was done about all the soot and sulfur dioxide being put into the atmosphere that was blocking sunlight. A simple, effective way (with horrible consequences to the environment) to cool the earth that has been mentioned lately as a last ditch effort to stop run away warming. Back then, scrubbers on smoke stacks and cleaner burning fuel mitigated the problem and global warming continued.
Keep convincing us you don't know jack about climate Sage and you may finally convince yourself. Up to 1980, there were only 7 peer reviewed articles that predicted global cooling, 40 with no opinion and 44 predicted global warming.
It was the then media that picked up the global cooling/ ice age story and concentrated on that because it was sensational It's like flashing your willie in a nudist camp it's not news, but do it on a street corner and your Dillinger
Did you even look at at the videos?? IThe 50s predictions are what's been happening up until now. If you did you would see that to the scientific community, at least those with brains, knew this was coming 60 years ago. it was never a surprise to scientists
97% http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...
Well for one thing a survey is not a peer reviewed paper and is doesn't once mention GC
I am sure that long ago Columbia Univ was talking about the US Average ground temps in the northern hemi and has no data for the southern hemi and it is a combination of ground and ocean temps that make up the global temps In addition we would look at natural variability also
National Academy was one of the first organizations to say that the planet is cooling, but thankfully they were won over by the real science and what have they said and what have they been convinced of for more than 3 decades is AGW
This crap is just more distraction Sage and doesn't prove jack
Not scaring, but talking about the possibility that Earth was about to enter a new ice age. But even at the time global warming due to all the CO2 was also talked about. And some of the talk was how the artificial warming from all the extra CO2 might prevent a natural ice age.
The scientific method involves scientists publishing papers in journals. Those papers are read by other scientists, who conduct additional research. Theories are proposed, shot-down, data is taken, shown to be flawed, and the whole of science moves forward on the basis of concepts that worked while rejecting those that didn't.
If you were to look at any area of science today you'd find ideas, theories, and data that will be disproved in the future. If that surprises anyone, then they don't understand how science operates.
The point is that most people don't read journals. It is journalists who find some article, decide to write a story about it, and then make that idea public. The fact that the idea might be wrong is a part of science. So, 40 years ago there was a theory. Some climatologists supported that theory. They were shown to be wrong. Science moved on and yet another theory in a long line of theories was disproven
We've seen in recent times the dangers involved when people fail to understand the scientific method. When a single paper is extracted and the results reported, it led to thousands of parents not immunising their children. The result was an increase in the number of deaths from measles. All on the basis of media reporting of a study that was later shown to be flawed.
Let scientists do their job. When the public starts to try to draw conclusions based on their limited knowledge and what non-scientists (like most journalists) tell them, it leads to issues like the one above. The difference with 'global warming' is that it's a theory that is now 150 years old, supported by decades worth of evidence, matches, models, and explains our observations, and has not been supplanted in at least 30 years by a better theory that has shown it to be false. Hence most scientists accept the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
Apparently back in the 70s scientists did all their publishing in the popular press, and none in scientific journals.
Gary F, didn't you hear that "Almost every major climate organization endorsed the 1970s ice age scare..."?
Maxx said that, so we know that must be true--he couldn't be lying again, could he?
Here's a quote from a meteorology text written in 1966 that may help Sagebrush's case:
"It may be that part of the global temperature increases of the last 100 years are due to man's activity in burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere." From "Introduction to Hydrometeorology" by Bruce and Clark.
Oh wait, that didn't help his case, did it? It sounds like meteorologists from almost 50 years ago were saying the exact same thing they're saying today. Oops.
EDIT: Looks like Crash wants to join the obvious lies club, with his
"Lots of global cooling papers published in period science journals such as nature & science but we're prohibited from reproducing them here or linking to them so we're stuck with popular press news articles"
Yeah, right--like you aren't allowed to give us the references to them either.
Yes. Government funded academic elitists were promoting human caused global cooling back in the 70s. Isn't it coincidental that the very same solutions (population control, communism, destruction of capitalism and private property right, a tyranical totalitarian world government, etc.) to stop global cooling is the same solutions that these same types of people are claiming will stop global warming. Mindboggling.
No doubt. Deniers repeat the lie if they are too stupid to come up with something less far fetched. Scientists ignore it along with most other anti-science crocs from the fossil fuel industry and its dupes and tools. Pet rocks got 1000 times as much coverage in the 1970s as a handful of press articles (not scientific reports) about an imminent ice age.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-...
Elizabeth's right on summary of what science is about in short form:
Stop lying about things you are too stupid to ever understand.
It doesn't matter how many F's you got in science. The chemistry of fossil fuels, the physics of carbon dioxide, and the operations of the carbon cycle, ocean temperatures, ice levels, precipitation, etc., global ecosystems and the dependency of the global economy on it, are not affected in the slightest by your, or anyone else's, psychological challenges, addiction to pasting fake and irrelevant quotes or denial of the history of the past century.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/the-1970s-ice-age-scare/
Some did, although I don't think that scaring us is the right word. But they were the minority. The "scare" was mostly in the media.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-...
Hasn't science advanced since the 1970s?
Yes it was on the news and in Time and Newsweek .
On the News One Scientist wanted to cover ice with ash to hold the heat in .
Then the Killer bees came and never arrived
Did any of these scientific bodies ever issue a statement saying anything about global cooling in the 1970s?
U.S. National Academy of Sciences;
American Association for the Advancement of Science;
American Chemical Society;
American Geophysical Union;
American Meteorological Society;
American Physical Society;
The Geological Society of America;
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências;
Royal Society of Canada;
Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Academié des Sciences;
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher;
Indian National Science Academy;
Accademia dei Lincei;
Science Council of Japan;
Russian Academy of Sciences;
Royal Society.
=====
edit --
>>C: Then how about this.<<
<
How about what? We would love to hear you explain what any of that means about anything,
>>Ha! Ha!<<
Backatcha, Bozo.
=====
>>Gary F: "Did any of these scientific bodies ever issue a statement saying anything about global cooling in the 1970s?
U.S. National Academy of Sciences;"
Yes, NAS did, it is in the article. Please read.<<
As usual, you are the one who does not read and cannot comprehend.
That is a graph - so what?
Did the NAS issue a formal statement? No.
>>Almost every major climate organization endorsed the 1970s ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.<<
Where are these "endorsements?"
They do not exist because the statement is a lie. The Denier political agenda consists entirely of lies and its advocates are all liars.
You are lying, Sage. Either that or you are brain damaged.
As any alarmist can tell you, there was no Ice Age scare in the 1970s. There were also no floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes or rising sea level. It was always the perfect temperature outside and rainbows would gently lift us off the ground and take us wherever we wanted to go.
Leonard Nimoy said it at the time. If you can't believe Spock(prime), who can you believe?
It was the media that did that actually. Don't worry we understand that you can't tell the difference of **** from clay
