Does anyone dispute that the majority of climate scientists in the 1970s were not predicting global cooling?

Question

In a recent question, the asker stated "thirty-five years ago, scientists were in a frenzy over global cooling. They were predicting that an ice-age would happen right about now, and temperatures would drop about forty degrees"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081123125942AAztcyl&r=w&show_comments=true&pa=FZB6NWHjDG3N56z6v_2wXDEe3iBVvoYUP1oLpX7eipCspoqjslWCPe.WcMBAOc6G8b8EYGMDjbpFsSR4K6QN_Q--&paid=add_comment#openions

Most of the answers to this question seem to be talking about the media's poortrayal of global cooling. However, the question did not ask about the media, it specifically asked about scientists. "Scientists were in a frenzy over global cooling."

Of course, peer-reviewed studies at the time mostly predicted warming (or made no prediction).

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

Does anyone dispute that the majority of climate scientists in the 1970s were not predicting global cooling? If not, why was I the only one to correct the false statements made in this question? Shouldn't self-proclaimed "skeptics" be interested in truth and facts?

Answer 1

Not anyone who's educated on the subject and honest about it.



A physicist historian has summarized the history very well adn completely here on the American Institute of Physics site. Contrary to the exaggerations of a vocal few, the research on global warming continued uninterrupted in the 1970s:



http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Leading scientists continued to doubt that anyone needed to worry at all about the greenhouse effect. The veteran climate expert Helmut Landsberg stressed in a 1970 review that little was known about how humans might change the climate. At worst, he thought, the rise of CO2 at the current rate might bring a 2°C temperature rise over the next 400 years, which "can hardly be called cataclysmic."(43) Meanwhile Hubert H. Lamb, the outstanding compiler of old climate data, wrote that the effects of CO2 were "doubtful... there are many uncertainties." The CO2 theory, he pointed out, failed to account for the numerous large shifts that he had uncovered in records of climate from medieval times to the present. Many agreed with Lamb that a "rather sharp decline" of global temperature since the 1940s put the whole matter in question.(44)



<=Modern temp's



Up to this point, I have described a central core of research on the effects of CO2 on climate — research that before the 1970s scarcely interacted with other subjects. During the 1970s, the greenhouse effect became a major topic in many overlapping fields. Scientists eventually determined that a bit over half of the effect of human activity on climate change is due to emissions of CO2 (mainly from fossil fuels but also from deforestation and cement manufacture). The rest of the effect is due to other gases such as methane and certain industrial gases; atmospheric pollution by smoke and dust; and changes in land use such as replacing dark forest with sunlight-reflecting crops or desert. These factors are discussed in other topical essays (especially those on Other Greenhouse Gases, Aerosols and The Biosphere.) The description of these studies is distributed among all the topical essays. The remainder of this essay covers only the developments most directly related to the gas CO2 itself.



Research on changes in the atmosphere's CO2 had been, almost by definition, identical to research on the greenhouse effect. But in the late 1970s and early 1980s, calculations found that other gases emitted by human activities also have a strong greenhouse effect — sometimes molecule for molecule tens or hundreds of times greater than CO2. Global climate change could not be properly studied without taking into account methane, emitted by both natural and artificial sources, and various other industrial gases. Nevertheless most of the scientific interest continued to revolve around CO2.



<=Other gases



Carbon cycle studies proliferated. A major stimulus was a controversy that erupted in the early 1970s and stubbornly resisted resolution. National economic statistics yielded reliable figures for how much CO2 humanity put into the air each year from burning fossil fuels. The measurements of the annual increase by Keeling and others showed that less than half of the new carbon could be found in the atmosphere. Where was the rest? Oceanographers calculated how much of the gas the oceans took up, while other scientists calculated how much the biosphere took up or emitted. The numbers didn't add up — some of the carbon was "missing." Plainly, scientists did not understand important parts of the carbon cycle. Looking at large-scale climate changes, such as between ice ages and warm periods, they turned up a variety of interactions with climate involving plant life and ocean chemistry. The papers addressing these topics became increasingly complex.



<=Biosphere



Some scientists took up the old argument that fertilization of plant life by additional CO2, together with uptake by the oceans, would keep the level of gas from rising too sharply. Keeling, however, warned that by the middle of the next century, plants could well reach their limit in taking up carbon (as every gardener knows, beyond some point fertilization is useless or even harmful). Further, there would eventually be so much CO2 in the ocean surface waters that the oceans would not be able to absorb additional gas as rapidly as at present.(45) He kept refining and improving his measurements of the CO2 level in the atmosphere to extract more information. The curve did not climb smoothly, but stuttered through a large seasonal cycle, plus mysterious spells of faster and slower growth. It was only over a long term, say a decade, that the rise was clearly as inexorable as a tide.(46) Meanwhile, computer models were coming into better agreement on the future warming to be expected from increased CO2. And global temperatures began to rise again. It was getting increasingly difficult for scientists to believe that the greenhouse effect was no cause for worry.

Answer 2

I'd like to answer the question and respond to Heretic: First of all, this is a different question, very much so. And in a different, more intellectual forum, this question would generate some interesting responses instead of the weak rhetoric we're seeing here. Second, my comment was intended for the other question you refer to, and taken out of context.



Yes, some obviously are disputing the fact that most climate scientists back when were not predicting global cooling. Yet the fact of the matter is that most scientists did not support that theory.



Yes, "skeptics" should be interested in the truth, but they seem to be very selective about their facts.

Answer 3

The lefties are speaking here out of duty and feelings of self importance in denying that global cooling was ever an issue in the 1970s. Clearly kids with undeveloped brains.



However, I was there and clearly recall all the concern. It was a major issue for a while, and certain scientists were indeed in a 'frenzy' about it. Global warming was no concern in the 1970s, the idea didn't exist and a word about it never spoken.

Answer 4

My thoughts, deniers are trying to hype it to create a distraction. So far deniers have been shown to be great magicians, but that is changing, regardless of how loud they yell. The overwhelming amount of evidence is pointing to the theory of AGW and Hansen has known for decades (along with many other scientists).

Answer 5

You know I was alive and conscious during the 70s (I hadn't started my 12 year long drinking binge yet) and I don't remember word one about an ice age. We were worried about dirty water and love canal, but not the ice age. The ice age is 100% revisionist history. It did not exist back then. People are dredging up a couple of barely read articles and saying it was public panic and that is a bigger stinking turd than the whole AGW scare.

Answer 6

No, most of the limited number of climate scientists in the 1970's were indeed predicting a coming ice age. This was simply based on historical data, and on the roughly 12,000 year cycle in the "wobble" of the Earth's axis. We have been spending the last few thousand years is a "warm bubble' of climate (with minor variations such as the so-called little ice age from about 1200 to 1800), and should be heading for an ice age, much as Mars is currently in one.



But we must understand that science is not static. As we gain more knowledge, our viewpoint changes. I'm not defending either predicted global warming or global cooling. Only noting that we now know more than we did back in the 1970's. And we will continue learning more. Who knows, the current hysteria about global warming may look as silly as the hysteria about "the coming ice age" did in the 1970's, as was shown on the covers of magazines like Popular Science. The real question is whether we will support more research (without bias or politicization) so that humanity can confront whatever fate awaits it in the future.

Answer 7

The only honest answer I can give is “Not any more, based on the evidence you provide.”



However, I reserve the right to change that opinion if it turns out that the review you link to is fraudulent, as happens with alarming regularity in the global warming debate (Oreskes, anyone?)



As an aside, could it be that one of the scientists on the global-cooling side of the argument was a certain Dr James Hansen? ( http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290 ) Surely not!

Answer 8

I have worked in science since the early 80s and am well aware of so called "cooling theory" and there never was one, large science groups like NAS never did support such a theory it made a small splash in the media in the mid 70s and died very quickly because there was no science to back it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1970s_Awareness

And jim z comment about blaming petroleum is a new one on me, as any cooling would have be blamed on industrial pollution and the release of particulate matter, and even in the 70s co2 was well known to be a warming gas. The continuing attempt to say, look at the 70s they didn't know what was happening then, so they don't know what's happening now, is childish. The science has moved on quite a lot and much has been learned. A portion of the denier movement are so locked into their denier faith that they try to seize on any small mistake like the recent miss allocation of some (Oct) temp records that they immediately cry conspiracy, fake etc etc which is rubbish.

I have seen some hear make reference to medicine (for instance) being quite bad at the turn of the last century, but in reality just like climate science much has been improved. If you had wanted a heart transplant as late as the mid 60s your chance of survival was 0, today ~70% of patients for 5 years and quite a few make have survived 20 years.

In the same way climate science has vastly improved it's knowledge over the last 30 years with satellite data and techniques for extracting info from things like ice cores that we didn't have in the 70s.



Heretic:

"if it wasn't pronounced in the media. How come everyone knows about it?"

O.K. F- for reading skills, it's in the 3rd line of my comment.

"it made a small splash in the media in the mid 70s"

Notice the words media and mid 70s

As for remembering it, I do because seeing it in the media and interest in Antarctica lead me into my job were I found out fairly quickly that cooling wasn't the problem and I don't have to rely on my memory as my work library has most of the related journals Nature, JGR, GRL, Science etc going back to the 50s and 60s.

Answer 9

I'm not sure about scientists, but the media had to be getting the idea from some place. Here's a good site about a bunch of the magazine headlines:



http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

Answer 10

You were here 35 years ago? boy are you dedicated! i thought you were here for 2 years or something!

Answer 11

Nice how someone who was obviously born in the 1980's seems to know more than those who were actually alive during those years. Way to go Dana. Can you also tell me what your personal experiences were from The Great Depression?



The thing you are forgetting is that you are arguing with people who were alive when you were not.



Would you tell your great grandfather that we've always had electricity because it was always around in your lifetime, and as far as you can remember there never was a time without it?



--edited--

Nice! there are a bunch of children here raising thumbs because they think they can read history books and be more informed than those who actually lived it.



Keep it up. It is actually just human nature. We ALL think we are smarter than we really are. We all think we know more than our parents or grandparents at some point in our lives. Hopefully though, someday we wake up and realize that they did know something.

Answer 12

Why are you asking the same question? There was some arguments that stated either/or could happen I gave you a link already that stated such. Apparently you didn't read it, or didn't comprehend? H_ll Amy even pointed out the fact that in the 70's climate research was limited. Your just looking for affirmation to your own personal view point. Good great your entitled, but I ain't buying it.





ed: (antarcticice) and (Dana), if it wasn't pronounced in the media. How come everyone knows about it? Was it some type of heavenly osmotic transport system. Where you both born with this knowledge? Oh...how naive of me you both discovered it at the same time and keep it to yourselves. I know sh_t when I hear it.



ed: It's amazing after 28 years you still remember that insignificant fact. The obvious gives you away.

Answer 13

But because of the media bombardment the average person on the street assumed that a new ice age was imminent within a few years. In reality the media blitz for AGW/GCC is no different today in volume or hysteria of the claims. So it is very possible as few real life scientists supported the ice age thing as support the current AGW hysteria. From investigation it seems to be about 10% in either case and mostly desk scientists because it seems few if any field men or active researchers support either one although the are all very concerned about the solar cycle 24 and its delay in getting going.

Answer 14

*yawn*



The Pacific Ocean could freeze over this winter and you'd call it weather. Then if a hurricane actually occurs and blows the roof off a hovel in Cuba, it's global warming.....



Give it up Dana, really. Some of us remember the 1970's pretty well, and all the hoopla about cooling that occured back then. You read an article about it, quote it, and think you know it...

Answer 15

Most media outlets and environmental activists were warning of cooling. The first Earth Day event in 1970 was focused primarily on global cooling.



The climate scientists you mention didn't exactly go out of their way to set the record straight publicly, since people were afraid enough of cooling.



Bottom line, the activists have an agenda. That agenda hasn't changed - shut down the "American consumerist" lifestyle. Over the decades these groups - UCS, PIRG, Greenpeace, etc... - have blamed various problems, some real, some exaggerated, many just plain made-up, on the "American consumerist lifestyle" and/or components of it. Typically the blame falls on the economic sectors necessary to realize this lifestyle - manufacturing, energy, agriculture... These sectors ironically were blamed both for cooling AND warming..... They're just trying to make a buck producing and selling things that we the consumers choose to buy, and they're blamed for the weather.



What's interesting to me is that, of late, these activist groups have blamed the consumer directly rather than the producers only. The indirect approach is always more effective than the direct approach, and this direct approach risks alienating people who drive SUVs or minivans because they have a large family or coach a soccer team. Trust me you don't want to alienate soccer moms.



But I digress. The point is, it's an agenda-driven process. The agenda is to shut down the lifestyle. This itself is detestable to me since nobody's forcing them to adopt that lifestyle - if they want to move to the outskirts of Burlington, VT and make a living selling trash sculptures on the side of the road, they're welcome to (and apparently the value of their plot of woodland is stable too). But they attack the lifestyle nonetheless. The arguments against the lifestyle failed in the realm of economics, so its detractors switched to making arguments in the realm of environmental activism.



But the process always starts with an agenda, with the same agenda. The agenda is to shut down the "American consumerist" lifestyle. The m.o. is to blame it for various and sundry problems - in this case, the weather. So whatever weather people will fear, they come up with a rationale as to how that weather is caused by the lifestyle. People tend to fear an exaggerated version of what's presently happening. So when it was generally cooler in the 1970s and had cooled for 30 years, they came up with "global cooling" and blamed us. Then when it was generally warmer from the late 1980s through 1990s, they changed it to "global warming" and again blamed us. Now that it's not warming any more and may be cooling, it will be interesting to see where the story goes - be it the catch-all of "climate change" or "global dimming offsetting global warming."



It doesn't matter that the scientists at the time, to the extent they dealt with long-range climate issues, were focused on CO2 as a heat-trapping agent. The scientists who had the activists' ear were the ones touting cooling. It doesn't matter what some esoteric university climate science journal said - the voters read Newsweek and Time. The theory you heard and read about in those periodicals and the news media generally, and in the speeches by environmental activists, was cooling. The scare tactic du jour was indeed global cooling:





This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976





There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)





This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976





If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)



The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

Answer 16

No.

It looks to me like warming has been a concern for quite a while.

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/co6.txt

Answer 17

There were no known predictions of global warming by the general public at the time, only predictions of the coming Ice Age. I was very much aware of the predictions of cooling. I was very much aware that they were trying to blame petroleum. I was very much aware that these were loony predictions by leftists that hated petroleum so they certainly didn't scare me. The only difference is that today, the loony predictions are taken more seriously. Actual scientists that weren't political motivated probably were not as likely to make predictions of cooling. In those days, billions weren't provided to those that proposed gloom and doom scenarios. Shouldn't alarmists be interested in truth and facts about politicized science? Well, if they were, they wouldn't be alarmists so I retract my question.