ONE MORE TIME FOR THE UBER DUMMIES...

The ice age that never was
15 December 2006 by Fred Pearce

There was a chill across the world, and it wasn't just the cold war. From the 1940s to the mid-70s, the planet seemed to be in the grip of a global cooling. For a while, almost every outbreak of extreme weather was blamed on it. Some members of a new scientific discipline, climatology, predicted a new ice age. Yet before the 70s were out, temperatures were rising and many of the soothsayers for a new ice age were warning of global warming instead. It is a strange, and now largely forgotten episode.   Some say it shows climate scientists are scaremongers and shouldn't be believed, whatever they are predicting. So what happened three decades ago? And why should we believe the climatologists now?

Global cooling was a real phenomenon - and it changed global history. In the winter of 1941, it stopped the German army's advance on Moscow: grease froze in German guns and thousands of soldiers died from cold. Hitler's failure to take Moscow marked a turning point in the second world war. Without the freezing 40s, Hitler might have triumphed. But by the 1970s, no one was giving thanks for global cooling. As snow banks built across the Canadian Arctic and pack ice grew in the North Atlantic, there was concern bordering on panic about where this might be leading.

Without the freezing 40s, Hitler might have triumphed
In July 1971, Stephen Schneider, a young American climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in New York, made headlines in The New York Times when he warned of a coming cooling that could "trigger an ice age". Soon after, George Kulka, a respected climatologist from the Czech Academy of Sciences, warned on TV that "the ice age is due now any time".

The US National Academy of Sciences reported "a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years". As a hint of the horrors in store, weird weather in Africa led to a drought in the Sahel that starved millions.

Many climate scientists, such as Fred Singer, now a well-known contrarian, called for action to halt the cooling. US government advisers proposed putting giant mirrors into orbit to direct more sunlight onto Earth. Others suggested sprinkling Himalayan glaciers with soot to absorb heat and maintain the ice-melt that feeds the region's rivers.

What prompted this panic? Three decades of evident, if mild, cooling had set the scene, but there was also genuine concern among climate scientists based on predictions of both natural and human-made climate change.

For one thing, the atmosphere was becoming dustier and filling with pollution. Fine, light-scattering particles in the air were shading the planet's surface and, some suspected, causing the cooling. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison argued that dust storms caused by farms spreading into more arid lands were mostly to blame. Meanwhile, Schneider tried to calculate the likely cooling effect of anthropogenic air pollution and compared it with the possible warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions, which it was now clear were accumulating in the atmosphere.

In Schneider's early calculations, published in Science in 1971, the cooling effect was dominant. He said aerosols might have doubled since 1900 and could double again in the coming 50 years. Even allowing for warming from CO2, this could still mean a 3.5 °C drop in global temperatures, which "if sustained over a period of several years... is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age".

At the same time, research into the history and timing of past ice ages made it clear that there had been many more than the four originally guessed at, their appearance driven by regular planetary wobbles. Worse, it was now clear that ice ages were the norm rather than the exception. According to Kulka, the most recent interval between ice ages appeared to have lasted only 5000 years. Our present interglacial had already lasted 10,000 years. An ice age was long overdue.

The early 1970s also saw the first analysis of Greenland ice cores and with it the suggestion that climate could change very fast: the last ice age may have taken hold within as little as a century. So the cooling in the mid-20th century might not have been a short-term blip but the start of a rapid slide into the next global freeze. The cooling caused by aerosols could kick-start the process, argued Kulka.

It is often claimed today that the fad for cooling was a brief interlude propagated by a few renegade researchers or even that the story is a myth invented by today's climate sceptics. It wasn't. There was good science behind the fears of global cooling. So why did the prognosis prove so wrong?

Short memories were partly to blame. A generation of researchers had virtually forgotten the work of Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, who predicted at the end of the 19th century that increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would cause significant warming. This meant few took much notice when in the 1960s Charles Keeling began to show that concentrations of the gas had been rising since at least the mid-1950s.


OH DEAR...  KISS MY ASS GUYS... 

I do bring it Mozz...  you refuse to see it.
And that is very disappointing to me.
I expect stupidity from Skippy.
I expect lies from Bozo.
You have been the biggest disappointment though.

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 7:09pm:


But of course you'd apply the same standards to Fire and Ice as you would to me - right?

Are they 'idiots' too? After all, they are saying that there was a Scientific Consensus, whereas you said otherwise.

Or is it ok if they lie because they support confusing the issue?

I'm still waiting to hear which Green groups were pushing such an esoteric issue as it was in the 70's.

You're still evading the answers.

I'm not concerned about winning a debating position. All I want to do is make the truth obvious, by exposing lies in the confusionalist arguments.

Once somebody starts lying, they have to keep track of the lies or else they contradict themselves.  I don't. I'm going back to basic science every time.

If you think you're so secure in your position on this, watch the videos. They are mostly well reasoned, and comfortable to listen to for the non-scientist.

Is it all important for you that you're secure in your position?

You want me to remember back to the 70s and tell you what Green groups or ngo environmentalists or members of...  Willesee had on his show?  Hmmm  now that'd be a big stretch Bozo...   Where were you on July the 4th 1973?

Or perhaps who those people were outside the supermarkets or school who were giving out leaflets.

Wait I can give you one name...  Lee Finch, he was in one of my classes at high school, I think he was certain we were bringing on an Ice Age.

Perhaps it was someone from the Sydney Greens or someone from the Sierra Club.  Or maybe another 70s green group.  Sorry can't remember right off the top of my head.

What it proves is that you are wrong or intentionally lying.
There was no scientific consensus which you now admit.
You said there was a GREEN push in the 70s for global cooling ,that is also wrong.
So, what we have established is that you are wrong on all accounts.

So, after all your abuse it seems mozz was right, there was no global cooling belief in the 1970s, not from scientists nor the GREEN movement.

Grendel wrote on Jul 14^th, 2009 at 12:38pm:


I remember that mini ice age we had very well. My hands turned blue one winter and the teacher had to put them under a hot tap to thaw out.

As far as Green groups go - they weren't really acknowledged as anything but drug induced hippies until the mid to late 80's, so no-one took much notice of them - but I do remember the name Lee Finch. Wasn't he the boy who stabbed you Grendel?  

No - but I remember the name from another forum - although I might have got it wrong. He stabbed Grendel with a compass.

Quote:




No - I think it was in the hand. They were probably arguing about this very subject.