What ever came of “global cooling”?
With all the noise on the blogosphere and the TV media (not to mention the big screen) over how man has single-handedly caused the current period of rapid warming, we seem to have forgotten that roughly 30 years earlier some of the very same science that is showing man’s devastating effect on the earth, was showing the exact opposite effect on our planet.
TIME magazine ran an article on “global cooling” on June 24th of 1974 entitled “Another Ice Age?”
Here are some selections from the article.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, 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.
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
The earth’s current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time.
I don’t know about you, but given the fact that an article from 1974 reads almost exactly like an article from 2006 if you swap out “cold” for “hot” raises too many questions for me to just ‘buy into’ the current political trend of blaming man because you have to take more water breaks this summer.
Fred Mangels
20 Jul, 2006
Thanks for that post. I’ve been trying to remind some global warming alarmists of the global cooling scare of the 70s for some time now. None of them seem to remember it.
James
20 Jul, 2006
It’s easy to forget when no one brings it up.
ken
20 Jul, 2006
James, what are your credentials to comment on climate change?
James
20 Jul, 2006
Ken, what are your credentials to criticize my opinion?
I don’t have to be a meteorologist to have an opinion on the weather.
I don’t have to be a congressmen to have an opinion on what happens in D.C.
I have opinions and I also have access to the administration of this blog, so that makes my opinion valid… I don’t need a peice of paper hanging on my wall to back up an opinion.
What is it with people like you and having to qualify everything with credentials or educational background? Buzz off.
ken
21 Jul, 2006
Well, James, my point is that global warming is a political, not scientific debate.
A study mentioned in Al Gore’s new film, An Inconvenient Truth, demonstrates my point. The Journal Science did a study of articles and coverage relating to global warming in the past decade or so. They looked at scientific peer-reviewed journals, and found that among the 900 or so articles on the topic, exactly 0 argued against the consensus on global warming. They also did a review of non-peer-reviewed, public media — such as NBC, Fox News, etc. Of those, 53% of the stories were skeptical of global warming. So while there is a clear political debate about global warming, there simply is no scientific debate. It’s a settled matter, just like the existence of gravity and evolution.
Now, you’re actually in the mainstream — you agree with the consensus — of politicians, not scientists. Hence my question — if you were a climatologist, your opinion of global warming would be quite remarkable and trailblazing. And here’s what the real scientists have to say about that.
James
21 Jul, 2006
exactly 0 argued against the consensus on global warming
The consensus being that Al Gore is right? Please elaborate.
It’s a settled matter, just like the existence of gravity and evolution.
I simply do not see how one can declare that a scientific debate on an imperfect science is over. I’ve heard and read Climatologists declare that they have yet to even scratch the surface of a full understanding of the weather and the climate patterns of the plantet. If we have one scientific body producting charts that show an alarming trend in global warming, and another showing that we’re in nothing more than a natural warming trend, how can that be “over”.
ken
21 Jul, 2006
Yes, the scientific consensus is exactly what Al Gore’s opinion is — not because Al Gore is a climatologist, but because he listens to them.
That’s just it. There is NO scientific body ANYWHERE that has claimed that there is nothing more than a natural trend in global warming. It’s not 50-50, 60-40, or 80-20, it’s 100-0 in support of global warming. That’s what the point of the Journal Science’s study is.
Study goes on into how the earth’s crust works, how the oceans work, and how gravity works. Similarly, study goes on into how the greenhouse effect impacts the Earth’s climate system. However, there is no debate about whether Earht exists, whether oceans exists, whether gravity exists, or whether the greenhouse effect exists.
If you’re going to challenge the theory of greenhouse gases, you might as well also challenge gravity while you’re at it. The right wing of the GOP is already challenging evolution.
Joel
22 Jul, 2006
The data was actually good there. Nowadays it’s known as global dimming and I believe that those studies dealt largely with something called insolation. However, the scientists underestimated or did not realize the counterpunch, the heat trapping effect of greenhouse gasses. Global dimming (itself from particulate pollution) could have been a very large threat had we not polluted the hell out of our atmosphere with other gasses.
James
24 Jul, 2006
Ken, quit being a moron.
I am not debating wether or not there is or isn’t global warming. In fact I have stated many times that it is a FACT that our planet goes through natural heating and cooling cycles. What I take issue with, is the “we’re all doomed”, “hellfire and brimstone” approach that people like Gore take on the subject.
I agree that we’re in a warming trend, but I’m not about to run around like Chicken Little pointing the finger at the US or Man in general.
KeaponLaffin
17 Aug, 2006
Anyone ever go to ‘JunkScience.com’ ? hehe
The consenses that ‘it’s caused by Man’ is nowhere near 100%. The media hype makes it seem that way, but anyone bothering to read actual scientific journals can easily figure out that most honest scientists, often regardless of bias, simply say ‘We don’t know yet’.
While I like JunkScience.com, LiveScience.com and similar websites, they don’t actually count. Read the peer-reviewed publications. Also doesn’t count if you just skim them.
Don’t read the media hype. If you want to make an educated opinion, read the actual studies and the entire thesis paper based upon those studies.
I admit, I’m not a scientist but I do read thesis’ by scientists when I have the time and have a dim understanding of some basic scientific principles.
The ‘Greenhouse Effect’ and ‘Greenhouse Gasses’ are misnomers which tend to mislead one into a false premise on the actual processes.
CO2 and Methane, ect don’t actually ‘trap’ heat in the atmosphere. It’s more complicated than that, study atomic/molecular physics.
We don’t know yet, that’s why there are so many published scientific papers about it recently. They’re trying to figure it out.
On a side note, my favorite ‘We-Caused-It’ article was warning than the increased CO2 levels would cause increased plant growth, especially poisoned ivy for some reason.
Hrmm..Increased plant growth? Wouldn’t that tend to ‘fix’ carbon by removing it from the atmosphere? And lets not forget plankton(which produce an estimated 50-70% of worldwide O2, using CO2 to do it), or diatoms which not ‘eat’ CO2, but also use carbon to build their tiny little shells.
I mean really. You could call burning of fossil fuels as pro-enviromentalist. After all, they used to be living critters. All that complex organic matter trapped deep underground, inaccessible to most lifeforms, and we’re breaking it down into simpler compounds, releasing it freely into the air for all the tiniest critters to enjoy, which feed the tiny critters, which the small critters eat, ect.
And before anyone responds with something foolish. No, that last bit is not advocating oil spills or pouring motor oil down the drain.
Altho I have no problems with using gasoline on fire-ant mounds.