jump to navigation

Breaking News! It’s Global Warming! No Wait it’s Cooling! No Wait…(Part 2) October 25, 2010

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
trackback

Breaking News! It’s Global Warming! No Wait it’s Cooling! No Wait…(Part 2)

By Art Horn and Michael J. Economides
Energy Tribune, October 22, 2010

The stories of a warming world continued into the late 1950s as the media inertia plowed forward adding to the warming stories of the 1930s and 40s. The Atlantic Ocean had been warming since the mid 1920s. This warming was keeping the arctic milder by pumping warmer water northward trough the Gulf Stream . On February 15, 1959 the New York Times reported “Arctic findings in particular support theory of rising global temperatures.” However the temperature of the earth was not warming, it was falling. The massive and dominant Pacific had been cooler since the mid 1940s and would continue to be so into the mid 1970s. Climate data show that starting in the mid-1940s the earth began a multi-decadal cooling trend. Around 1960 the Atlantic began to cool again. Now both oceans were in their cooler phase. The two oceans were working in tandem to chill the planet. It was not until later in the 1960s that the media began to really notice.

On November 15, 1969 Science News quoted meteorologist Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr. “How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilizations.” Where have we heard that before? Mitchell continued “If the cooling continues for another 200 to 300 years the earth could be plunged into an ice age.” On January 11, 1970 the Washington Post ran the headline “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age” The story read “Better get a good grip on your long johns cold weather haters, the worst may be yet to come.” Fortune Magazine reported in February of 1974 “It is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude.” Sound familiar? In the June 24, 1970 edition Time Magazine wrote “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.” Newsweek on April 28, 1975 wrote that “The earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.” According to Newsweek “meteorologists” were “almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”

So it looked like we were on the precipice of a new ice age with cataclysmic consequences for the world. Then, stealthily to all, the Pacific Ocean began to warm again and so did the earth’s temperature. All the stories of the next ice age, the dramatic drop in food production and all the hardships to come disappeared fast…again.

Read the rest here

About these ads

Comments»

1. honestclimate - October 25, 2010
2. Bush bunny - October 25, 2010

Why don’t people consider Earth is a natural ice planet? Then we would understand all these trends
from going through glacial, interglacial and mini glacials as a normal cyclical sequence. And we have to adapt to it.

Sadly a full glacial period would be disaster to
humans. The Northern Hemisphere would gradually become almost agriculturally impossible in areas, therefore cutting down production of food.

The only safe area is Australia and some of the areas in the Southern Hemisphere.

However, a full glacial period is 1000s of years
away. By which time, we would have made adaptations. And I don’t mean adjusting Mars atmosphere to support human life. Another thought of course, but at what cost?

3. Saladin - October 25, 2010

That’s because of climate “Disruption” dontcha know?

4. Jeff - October 26, 2010

The popular press certainly gets a lot of things wrong. Instead of quoting the popular press, quote climate scientists. In 1975 (Science volume 189, p. 460), Wallace Broecker predicted that the global temperature in 2010 would be 1.1 C higher than it was in 1850. He based that prediction on an estimate of 410 ppm for the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Adjust his prediction for the actual CO2 concentration (390 ppm) and you get something between 0.8 and 0.9. The actual difference since 1850 is approximately 0.7; he was close, but a little high. Each decade since his prediction has been warmer than the one before it.

5. Bush bunny - October 27, 2010

Hi Jeff,

Europe was just coming out of a mini ice age in the 1850s. From 800s to 1300s there was a recorded Medieval Warm Period for Northern Hemisphere, warmer than today, not sure has this equated exactly in the Southern Hemisphere though. Then the temps dropped. And Northern Europe experienced a Mini Ice Age. So as this was part of an interglacial, that is expected to have periods of higher and lower temps until another full glacial period arrives, it is understandable that some frustrated academics would announced that since the 1850s the worlds’ temperatures have risen. They have
but not as high as during the Medieval Warm Period. When no AGW would have influenced global temps as suggested now?

CO2 is a gas. 99% of our atmospheric CO2 is naturally produced. And only CO2 makes up 4% of GHG. 95% being water vapor, and the rest bar the 4% CO2 is made up of trace gases, ozone, nitrous oxide and methane. One % of this CO2 is enhanced by human activities. Heavy atmospheric particles are a different matter of course (excuse the pun?) That’s pollution.

We are naturally an ice planet, we fluctuate without human help from ice ages and warmer periods, Interglacials. And mini ice ages. All to do with solar influence and our orbit universally. We have happily enjoyed around the globe particularly the Northern Hemisphere a Interglacial. Don’t wish another ice age on us or even mini ice age. Or take a bet and move to the Southern Hemisphere.

All this AGW nonsense is purely political, and does not cut the mustard scientifically.

6. Jack Revenaugh - October 29, 2010

I think it’s a myth!

7. Bush bunny - November 1, 2010

Well of course many people believe AGW. Now the Ozzie government is telling us, that a carbon tax
is necessary, to get people to invest in what?

Problem here is the NSW was giving people who installed solar panels connected to the grid 60c
a mw. Now have dropped it to 20c per whatever mgw. Not too good eh, for carbon trading or all the thousands of $$’s people have honestly paid out to offset electricity prices and also help the environment and help prevent climate change.

To me it is like putting a sugar cube into Loch Ness hoping to make the water sweet, what?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: