... with George Will, but Combating "warming" is still up for debate seems interesting to me, since I am old enough remember when these media items were fresh:
- Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.''
Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed'' that we must "prepare for the next ice age.''
- The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect,'' Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance,'' "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter'' and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.''
- Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World,'' April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous'' that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age.''
- The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable'' now that it is "well established'' that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950.''
All this was just over 30 years ago. Here's more:
- The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.- Nigel Calder, International Wildlife, June 1975
"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialisation, mechanisation, urbanisation and exploding population."- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", 1971
- The rapid cooling of the earth since World War II is also in accord with the increased air pollution associated with industrialization, and an exploding population.- Reid Bryson, "Environmental Roulette", 1971
- An increase by only a factor of 4 in the global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. 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. - S.I Rasool and S.H. SchneiderScience, v173, p138, 9/7/1971.
- "This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century"- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
- "This cooling has already killed hundereds 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 memory serves, none of this happened.
I believe Mr. Will also also said back in 1987 that Ronald Reagan had lost the Cold War.
ReplyDeleteHere is a scientist's take on Global Cooling vs. Warming:
Whatever Happened To Global Cooling?
By Susan Kruglinski
DISCOVER Vol. 27 No. 02 | February 2006 | Environment
Global warming skeptics often cite contradictory reports from a generation ago warning of global cooling. In 1975 Newsweek wrote of "ominous signs" that temperatures were dipping, and a year later National Geographic suggested the possibility of a worldwide chilling trend. Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University, recalls those stories well. "I was one of the ones who talked about global cooling," he says. "I was also the one who said what was wrong with that idea within three years."
Schneider coauthored a 1971 article in the journal Science about atmospheric aerosols—floating particles of soil dust, volcanic ash, and human-made pollutants. His research suggested that industrial aerosols could block sunlight and reduce global temperatures enough to overcome the effects of greenhouse gases, possibly triggering an ice age. But he soon realized that he had overestimated the amount of aerosols in the air and underestimated the role of greenhouse gases.
"Back then this science was so new, so theoretical, it was really hard to sort it out," he says. He and other early climate researchers say they did not predict a global cooling trend but simply suggested the possibility. Evidence suggests that average worldwide temperatures did decrease between the 1940s and the 1970s. Some climatologists partially attribute the temporary cooling trend to industrial smog, which has since been overcome by the effects of growing greenhouse emissions and, ironically, by clean-air laws that have reduced atmospheric particulates.
"Science is a self-correcting institution," Schneider says. "The data change, so of course you change your position. Otherwise, you would be dishonest."
Hey, thanks for sending that along. But I note that Schneider says that he had changed his position within three years, which would be 1974. Judging by the dates of some of the comments I cited, it took a while to catch on. As I have pointed out here a number of times I am in what Freeman Dyson calls the humanist camp on this issue. Which is to say it does not top my list of priorities - poverty and disease do. Also, Will is correct about the one-degree temperature rise. And historically, there have been warmer times. And, like it or not, Kyoto will never be approved by any U.S. Senate, no matter which party holds the majority.
ReplyDeleteMy own recollection is that I began hearing about the "greenhouse effect" around the mid-seventies. (This term has since morphed into "Global Warming" and "Climate Change"). I think Mr. Will has a point on the changing opinions in science, as well as some of the motivations behind media campaigns. Certainly he's right about the press' tendency to frequently sound alarm bells – particularly on science issues, where their own expertise is pretty low. (That includes many “science journalists”, based on what I read about my own area of expertise).
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid, though, I can't go as far as to give his scientific musings the same weight as the great majority of climatologists, who seem to feel global warming is occurring. There are many thoughtful and tedious studies in science journals on this topic that don’t have quite the readership or pizazz of Time. (The one degree rise Mr. Will cites is based on a large amount of data, not just a few thermometers, and has been refined over the years.)
I think it is correct to say that there is more internal scientific debate about how much of that rise is man-made versus natural, which in turn leads to the question of how much further it will go. As always, there are extreme elements at both ends of this debate, often well outside the mainstream scientific community (if members at all) and it is these rabble-rousers that tend to get the most press.
There are a number of studies postulating the various changes that go with a continuing increase in temperature, if it were to occur. These changes include an increase in the range of tropical diseases, and of droughts in general.
I think you're absolutely right that the US will never agree to Kyoto (and it may in fact be unfairly weighted toward the “haves” vs. the “wannabes”). I'd also agree that we're not exactly dealing with poverty and disease all that well right now on a global scale, so perhaps we should spend a little more time on these current issues and a little less on wringing our hands about what the future may hold.
I suspect, though, that on average we'll do neither, and just watch more TV instead.
In climate research, there are a lot of uncertainties (in the scientific sense) and a lot of hype. There is a good(ish) website put together by a group of climate researchers that attempts to give as clear and unbiased a picture as possible, at www.realclimate.org.
ReplyDeleteI have pasted-in here their comments on some of the work Frank has highlighted, and their views on exaggeration. I think that if anyone who isn't a specialist in the area is interested in following climate research, they'd be well served by following a website like this one than in trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff among the many agendas at work.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/catastrophic-sea-level-rise-more-evidence-from-the-ice-sheets/#more-276
What does all this news mean in practice? Reading the editorials in Science, and quotations from various researchers in newspaper articles, one might be under the impression that we should now expect "catastrophic sea-level rise" (as Science's Richard Kerr writes). Of course, what is catastrophic to the eye of a geologist may be an event taking thousands of years. In the Otto-Bliesner et al. simulations, it takes 2000-3000 years for Greenland to melt back to its LIG minimum size. And while we don't advocate sticking with the typical politician's time frame of 4 or 5 years, the new results do not require us to revise projections of sea level rise over the next century or so. This is because even with Arctic temperature continuing to rise rapidly, there will still be significant delay before the process of ice sheet melting and thinning is complete. There is uncertainty in this delay time, but this is already taken into account in IPCC uncertainty estimates. It is also important to remember that the data showing accelerating mass loss in Antarctica and rapid glacier flow in Greenland only reflect a very few years of measurements -- the GRACE satellite has only been in operation since 2002, so it provides only a snapshot of Antarctic mass changes. We don't really know whether these observations reflect the long term trend.
On the other hand, none of the new evidence points in the direction of smaller rates of sea level rise in the future, and probably nudge us closer to the upper end of the IPCC predictions. Those who have already been ignoring or naysaying those predictions now have even less of a leg to stand on. Coastal managers, real estate developers, and insurance companies, at the least, would be wise to continue to take such predictions seriously.** As Don Kennedy and Brooks Hanson write in the lead Editorial, "accelerated glacial melting and larger changes in sea level should be looked at as probable events, not as hypothetical possibilities."
My point in this post had less to do with the issue of climate change than with the confidence those writing in the 70s had in their predictions. I am afraid I am one of those people who does not believe that we can predict the future - at all, period. Precisely because there are a lot of uncertainties in climate research, people should be cautious about making sweeping assertions. As I understand it, most climatologists believe that warming is taking place. I also believe a good many of them think that this is, at least to some extent, a recurring natural phenomenon. Certainly there have been periods in the historical past that were warmer than now. That we are alive and discussing this issue argues powerfully that the earlier periods of warmth did not wipe out human life. I suppose what I am reacting against is the endless litany of "the sky is falling" sent up by self-styled environmentalists. Every day one hears about something else one is supposed to be worried about. Bear in mind that many of the people on the global warming band wagon are simply Luddites who want us to return to our villages and use wooden ploughs. They certainly don't want us to eat genetically engineered food (though they themselves are certainly eating hybrid vegetables, forgetting that hybridization is a simply a primitive form of genetic engineering).
ReplyDeleteSome of the people you quote in your post (most of them I think) are not scientsits but pundits of some kind or other. I agree that media and politicians are not usually too responsible about what they say as they have their own agendas. And they could well have the motives you suggest, Frank.
ReplyDeleteBut I do think that most climatologists believe there is a real trend on top of a cycle (or cycles). However, I am sure they would agree with you that they cannot predict the future. I hope the great majority do not have personal agendas such as those you mention. Although, as I've said before, there are reasons not to admire the IPCC, there are also reasons to admire it. One positive thing about it is that it puts in checks and balances to the system.
At the end of the day, scientists can't control how the media and politicians "spin" their technical results. Prof Schneider, whom you quote, is not 100 per cent popular with other climate scientists and does not represent them. He does good research but has been said by some to court the media too much; also he has been on record as changing his mind on implications.
This is why I recommend the website, as it does attempt to be responsible and clear as it is possible for science to be.