Remember how certain the scientists were? Remember how the UN warned us? Remember when all the experts shouted from the roof tops that the end of civilization was coming, and soon? Remember the climatologists and the statisticians bombarding us with data? Remember the Left predicting the Earth becoming a giant ice ball like Europa? Remember Leonard Nimoy forewarning of the end of humanity? Remember the BS? No? Well, here’s a reminder. Don’t the AOC’s and climatologists of today’s world sound just as melodramatic and hysterical? Does to me.
According to Gisp2 ice cores, the Holocene has been cooling steadily since the Holocene optimum about 8,000 years ago. About 3,000 years ago the cooling increased. Each warm period has been cooler than the last including the Modern Warm period.
Oh, big time. Actually, according to IQ standards, I’m smarter than 90% of the human race. That’s good enough for me. But, hell you keep believing in hysteria—it’s still a semi-free nation, so feel semi-free.
"data fed into central computers" "89,000 years ago the climate changed into . . ." Hell that can be manipulated to mean anything at anytime. I see that frostbite had gotten Nimoy's eartips. Beware of climateers. Then, and for sure, now.
Some posters did not live through this dire period of our history yet I sure did. And at the tiome they almost hoodwinked me and millions more. I recall in Germany in the winter of 62-3 we kept hearing irt was so cold that the last time it was that cold was in the 1930s. I have photos of birds walking on the ice frozen Canals of Amsterdam in February of 1963.
Yep, which is why they learned their lessons and now label everything Climate Change. That way they can't be wrong no matter their prediction since the climate is gradually going to keep changing no matter what; just as it has done from the get-go. It's freaking brilliant!
Plus, no matter what direction or tangent the change in climate goes toward there ain't jack they can do about it except oppress people with more taxes, fees, etc. If he was still breathin' people would accuse Barnum of inventing climate change.
Yep, because most likely Barnum would have invented it in this era just to separate gullible sheeple -- mostly leftists -- from their money. The fellow was canny.
Scientists were reasonably certain even in the 70s that the planet would warm. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 Most of the ice age craze like the video posted here was born out of Reid Bryson's human volcano theory which received widespread and immediate rejection among his peers. Ironically even Reid Bryson himself acknowledged that CO2 was a potent greenhouse gas and even testified to congress as much. He just severely overestimated the cooling effect of human aerosols.
Yet GISP2 ice cores show constant cooling after the Holocene optimum with increased cooling approx. 3000 years ago. Each warm period has been cooler than the last including the modern warm period.
The term climate change was first used back in the 1950's though variations of the phrase were used much earlier. Either way it was the Luntz Memo penned by a Republican strategist to Bush who recommended using "climate change" instead of "global warming" for political reasons. Nevermind the fact that climate change and global warming have slightly different meanings. Global warming is in reference to the long term secular increase in the global mean temperature change. Climate change is in reference to the changes that are observed or can be expected as a result of global warming.
Don't forget to add the last 170 years of warming in Greenland to the GISP2 data before making assertions regarding how the modern warm era compares to the past. But yes, there was a general cooling trend over the last several thousand years as a result of a slow ramp up in the cool phase of the current Milankovitch cycle.
I am sure the term the climate is changing goes back further then the 1950s, the point being made is some people love to change words/move goal posts when they are wrong.
What will be their excuse in 2050 when LA is still warm and above water, the polar caps are still around, and Fargo is still bitterly cold in the winter. Climate change propaganda is anti-science masquerading as pseudo-science. It is proselytized to the befuddle the masses, who can’t tell their nimbus from cumulus, to get them to surrender their liberty to psychotic control freaks—the Religious right, the Alt-Right, and the Progressive Left. Man and his creations are not destroying the planet, those who seek to enslave him, are.
Since scientists aren't predicting any of these occurring by 2050 I'd imagine excuses would be unnecessary. Climate science is based on the law of physics. The laws of physics behave the same regardless of whether your the Religious right, the Alt-Right, or the Progress Left. The planet will experience a warming tendency under the influence of increased GHGs because that's just the way it is. I'm not sure what your definition of "destroy" is, but man is certainly influencing the planet on a grand scale.
The U.N. didn't warn us and no major science organization ever projected global cooling. The IPCC wasn't formed until 1988.There were a few scientists that warned of global cooling in the early 1970's but that position was speculative and climate science was in its infancy. There are many places on the internet that discuss this myth that you are promoting so why didn't you inform yourself before starting this thread? why do present a youtube video with L. Nimoy as evidence? I didn't bother to watch it because the subject is climate science, not popular culture. from Wikipedia -global cooling: Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[1 By the 1970s, scientists were becoming increasingly aware that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945, as well as the possibility of large scale warming due to emissions of greenhouse gases. In the scientific papers which considered climate trends of the 21st century, less than 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[1] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend.[3] The actual increase in this period was 29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse gases in 1968.[4] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's warming effects.[5] In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that "a very significant warming of global climate" was probable.[6] Pre-1970s[edit] J. Murray Mitchell showed as early as 1963 a multidecadal cooling since about 1940.[1] At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966, Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years." In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."[4] 1970s awareness[edit] The temperature record as seen in 1975; compare with the next figure. Global mean surface temperature change since 1880. Source: NASA GISS Concern peaked in the early 1970s, though "the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then" [1] (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming). This peaking concern is partially attributable to the fact much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. Climate scientists were aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[17]). Despite that, in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports, and "unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North America in 1972 and 1973...pushed the issue into the public consciousness".[1] In the 1970s, the compilation of records to produce hemispheric, or global, temperature records had just begun. Spencer R. Weart's history of The Discovery of Global Warming states that: While neither scientists nor the public could be sure in the 1970s whether the world was warming or cooling, people were increasingly inclined to believe that global climate was on the move, and in no small way.[18] On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post reported that "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age".[19] In 1972, Emiliani warned "Man's activity may either precipitate this new ice age or lead to substantial or even total melting of the ice caps...".[20] By 1972 a group of glacial-epoch experts at a conference agreed that "the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near";[21] but the volume of Quaternary Research reporting on the meeting said that "the basic conclusion to be drawn from the discussions in this section is that the knowledge necessary for understanding the mechanism of climate change is still lamentably inadequate". Unless there were impacts from future human activity, they thought that serious cooling "must be expected within the next few millennia or even centuries"; but many other scientists doubted these conclusions.[22][23] In 1972, George Kukla and Robert Matthews, in a Science write-up of a conference, asked when and how the current interglacial would end; concluding that "Global cooling and related rapid changes of environment, substantially exceeding the fluctuations experienced by man in historical times, must be expected within the next few millennia or even centuries."[24] 1970 SCEP report[edit] The 1970 Study of Critical Environmental Problems [25] reported the possibility of warming from increased carbon dioxide, but no concerns about cooling, setting a lower bound on the beginning of interest in "global cooling". .
continued from Wikipedia - Global Cooling 1971 to 1975: papers on warming and cooling factors[edit] By 1971, studies indicated that human caused air pollution was spreading, but there was uncertainty as to whether aerosols would cause warming or cooling, and whether or not they were more significant than rising CO2 levels. J. Murray Mitchell still viewed humans as "innocent bystanders" in the cooling from the 1940s to 1970, but in 1971 his calculations suggested that rising emissions could cause significant cooling after 2000, though he also argued that emissions could cause warming depending on circumstances. Calculations were too basic at this time to be trusted to give reliable results.[26][27] An early numerical computation of climate effects was published in the journal Science in July 1971 as a paper by S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider, titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate".[28] The paper used rudimentary data and equations to compute the possible future effects of large increases in the densities in the atmosphere of two types of human environmental emissions:[29] greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide; particulate pollution such as smog, some of which remains suspended in the atmosphere in aerosol form for years. The paper suggested that the global warming due to greenhouse gases would tend to have less effect with greater densities, and while aerosol pollution could cause warming, it was likely that it would tend to have a cooling effect which increased with density. They concluded that "An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."[30] Both their equations and their data were badly flawed, as was soon pointed out by other scientists and confirmed by Schneider himself.[29] In January 1972, Robert Jay Charlson et al. pointed out that with other reasonable assumptions, the model produced the opposite conclusion.[31] The model made no allowance for changes in clouds or convection, and erroneously indicated that 8 times as much CO2 would only cause 2 °C of warming.[32] In a paper published in 1975, Schneider corrected the overestimate of aerosol cooling by checking data on the effects of dust produced by volcanoes. When the model included estimated changes in solar intensity, it gave a reasonable match to temperatures over the previous thousand years and its prediction was that "CO2 warming dominates the surface temperature patterns soon after 1980."[33] 1972 and 1974 National Science Board[edit] The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."[34] But it also continued; "However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."[34] The Board's report of 1974, Science And The Challenges Ahead, continued on this theme. "During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade."[35] Discussion of cyclic glacial periods does not feature in this report. Instead it is the role of humans that is central to the report's analysis. "The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century".[35] The report did not conclude whether carbon dioxide in warming, or agricultural and industrial pollution in cooling, are factors in the recent climatic changes, noting; "Before such questions as these can be resolved, major advances must be made in understanding the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere and oceans, and in measuring and tracing particulates through the system."[36] 1975 National Academy of Sciences report[edit] There also was a Report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) entitled, "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action".[37] The report stated (p. 36) that, "The average surface air temperature in the northern hemisphere increased from the 1880's until about 1940 and has been decreasing thereafter." It also stated (p. 44) that, "If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of CO2." The report did not predict whether the 25-year cooling trend would continue. It stated (Forward, p. v) that, "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course [so] it does not seem possible to predict climate," and (p. 2) "The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know." The Report's "program for action" was a call for creation of a new "National Climatic Research Program." It stated (p. 62), "If we are to react rationally to the inevitable climatic changes of the future, and if we are ever to predict their future course, whether they are natural or man-induced, a far greater understanding of these changes is required than we now possess. It is, moreover, important that this knowledge be acquired as soon as possible." For that reason, it stated, "the time has now come to initiate a broad and coordinated attack on the problem of climate and climatic change." 1974 Time magazine article[edit] While these discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, other accounts appeared in the popular media. In their June 24, 1974 issue, Time presented an article titled "Another Ice Age?" that noted "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades" but noted that "Some scientists... think that the cooling trend may be only temporary." [38] 1975 Newsweek article[edit] An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled "The Cooling World",[39] it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article stated "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The Newsweek article did not state the cause of cooling; it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." Other 1970s sources[edit] Academic analysis of the peer-reviewed studies published at that time shows that most papers examining aspects of climate during the 1970s were either neutral or showed a warming trend.[1] In 1977, a popular book on the topic was published, called The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age My comment: Even if climate scientists were wrong in the early 1970's it would be a logical fallacy to conclude that the current climate science is therefore dubious. Climate science has come a long way since the early 1970's.
All that to prove this? Yes it was popular belief in the 1970s the next ice age was coming, people like me lived through it, I watched this live on television
To say scientist didn't claim another ice age was coming in the 1970s is preposterous at best, revisionist history at worse.
I lived through it too and I didn't believe it. I am presenting lots of facts because there aren't any facts in the OP. Climate science was not as well understood in the 1970's versus today and that is an understatement. Climate scientists did not know how rapidly CO2 and other greenhouse gases would rise in the 20th century and they didn't know that aerosol concentrations in the industrialized world would decrease during the 1970's because of an effort to reduce air pollution. One scientist mentioned in that Wikipedia article overestimated the effects of aerosol cooling but other scientists were skeptical of his analysis.
You didn't believe it because being a arm chair QB..Is fun? 40 plus years later they cant even tell us the weather next Friday much less 50 years from now. More predictions more failures.
This is from a November 2007 article by NASA. Scientists in the 1970's could not have known about the future decline in stratospheric sulfate particles (aerosols) that reflect sunlight away from earth.. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php After World War II, the industrial economies of Europe and the United States were revving up to a level of productivity the world had never seen before. To power this large-scale expansion of industry, Europeans and Americans burned an enormous quantity of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). In addition to carbon dioxide, burning fossil fuel produces particulate matter—including soot and light-colored sulfate aerosols. Hansen suspects the relatively sudden, massive output of aerosols from industries and power plants contributed to the global cooling trend from 1940-1970. That’s my suggestion, though it’s still not proven,” he said. “There is a nice record of sulfates in Greenland ice cores that shows this type of particle was peaking in the atmosphere around 1970. And then the ice core record shows a rapid decline in sulfates, right about the time nations began regulating their emission.” (Sulfates cause acid rain and other health and environmental problems.) In 2007, Michael Mischenko, of NASA GISS, published a paper in the journal Science in which he reported tropospheric aerosols have indeed declined slightly over the last 30 years. The net effect is that more sunlight passes through the atmosphere, slightly brightening the surface. This increased exposure to sunlight could partially account for the increase in surface temperature that Mischenko and Hansen observed over the same time span.
Despite the neurotic rantings of the Apocalyptics, man’s use of fossil fuels won’t destroy humanity nor the earth. Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...g-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/amp/ What science is: Two atoms of hydrogen plus one atom of oxygen is one molecule of water. What neurotic hysteria is: The polar caps are melting. We are all going to drown. What science is: Fossil fuels emit CO2. What neurotic hysteria is: Driving your kids and grandkids to Disney World will destroy the planet. What science is: Methane gas is poisonous to the human being. What neurotic hysteria is: Eating juicy hamburgers and grilling filet mignons on the barbecue will bring about the extinction of the human race. All cows must die. What science is: knowledge based on reason derived from reality. What climate catastrophe is: Neurotic hysteria based on delusions derived from irrational fears. Get a grip, people.
