Global Cooling
I’ve seen this argument trotted out in our comments far too many times. Let’s put a fork in this one:
The supposed “global cooling” consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era. The ’70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends. The study reports, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. “A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales.”
It seems to me that we need a well-funded government agency, similar to NIH, to gather data and fund further study of climatology. Conservatives might scream “Higher taxes!” but NIH has proven that it is possible for a government agency to benefit humanity immeasurably.
Yes, the problem of climage change is a daunting one. It seems that that climatologists have to deal with a part of the world with more unpredictable variables than any other science — with the apparent fact that the shape of weather events is determined by facts arising from realities which are largely chaotic. Perhaps generalizations about weather *can’t* be made..
The chaos of weather presents a fascinating and very important question for philosophers of science: is it possible that the apparently unpredictable variables of weather systems might be caused by some non-material cause or causes which are unavailable to the methods of scientific discovery? Materialists don’t like this question — it implies that either materialism is inadequate to explain the world, or that some changes are not caused at all. The latter would be the death of science. And I muist admit that that question might be a frightening one for those who believe that there is no ultimate and benign Creator-Orderer.
Although i personally believe that the great global warming scare will someday be regarded as a quaint relic of the early 21st century (millennial times always bring about end-of-the-world predictions), I have no objection to reducing our burning of fossil fuels … but I wish the global warming advocates would be more honest: the reductions they want cannot be achieved easily or painlessly. In fact, the reductions they call for would require such a drastic alteration in the American lifestyle that nothing short of draconian mandates could bring it about … of course, since vry few people will actually vote for those who advocate such measures, the imposition of some form of environmental martial law will be neccessary along with the abandonment of our most basic freedoms to buy and sell what we choose, travel where we wish, pursue happiness in our own way, and even freely assemble and freely speak (after all, if civilization itself is at risk–as Saint Gore would have us believe–than we cannot allow global warming deniers to spread their lies … nor can the average person be allowed to question the mandates against driving, flying, using air conditioning, using powerered lawn mowers, indeed using all that carbon-emitting electricity that we can’t seem to give up withouta little prodding from our Big Green Brother … so welcome to the future: 2084-style! (orwell was just a century early, I guess)
“… the great global warming scare will someday be regarded as a quaint relic of the early 21st century …”
Sort of like the ice covering the Arctic Ocean.
I think it’s helpful to sort out the people who tell us what’s going on from the people who offer really workable suggestions on what to do about it. The conservative aversion to climate change is hard to divorce from their dislike of Al Gore, or environmentalists, or whoever criticizes their me-first lifestyle.
The fact is that so many cannot separate out good science from bad policy, so they decide to throw it all out the window. A rational conservative would look at climate change as a true challenge, accept the scientific evidence, and do something to … well … conserve.
Solar variability, another favorite of those not quite enough in denial to actually ignore the meltwater all around them, isn’t a scientific favorite at the moment, either: http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/
What I don’t understand is how people who would not dream of rejecting the advice of their doctors, engineers and architects about matters for which there is scientific consensus, nevertheless cheerfully reject the conclusions of scientists across the world who agree that global warming is at least partially caused by our burning of fossil fuels and that the future looks extremely grim unless we change our ways.
In other words, why accept some widely accepted scientific conclusions (e.g. high levels of cholesterol are bad for your heart) but reject others — and reject them without substantive counter evidence.
I suspect that part of the reason for such disbelief is that people who majored in the Humanities do not generally know as much science as they need to. Sadly, in my experience scientists are much more open to and knowledgeable about the Humanities than people in the Humanities are open to and knowledgeable about the sciences.
Ann:
Because cholesterol is not a political issue, no one had an agenda about cholesterol, pro or con (other than the Fast Food Industry and the anti-Fast Food fanatics) … but much of the global warming debate–the part about what to do–is highly political, as in the agruments that China, India, and other developing countries should be exempt from carbon restrictions because the Werst alreayd got rich by burnbing carbon … but if civilizastion iutself is at stake,m then no one should be exempt.
Todd: The ice is back, according to a Feb 18 report in the London Daily Express: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-s-the-coldest-winter-in-decades
Awhile back, National Journal took a poll of “congressional insiders” (a selected group of members of both the house and senate) and found that when asked if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth was warming because of human activity, 95 percent of Democrats said yes, and 84 percent of Republicans said no.
It is perhaps easy to understand that Democrats and Republicans can disagree on matters like economic theories, but in this case, ideology seems to determine what they believe about the scientific consensus on an empirical matter.
http://syndication.nationaljournal.com/images/203Insiderspoll_NJlogo.pdf
Thanks for the link, Robert, but anybody wanting to be part of a serious discussion is going to have to sort out the basic definitions of weather and climate.
Todd:
Your comment about “the basio definitions of weather and climate” seems to be an unfair insinuation. Although the overall article discussed weather issues, you know full well that I sent you the link because of the reference to arctic ice:
“[F]igures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back.
Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.
Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.”
Here’s the NOAA web site with ice statistics for January 2008…
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/global.html#seaice
Ice coverage in the Arctic this winter has ranged from 0.5 to 1 million km below normal for this time of year.
Snow coverage, thanks to the heavy snows in unusual places in Asia, is very high.
For now, ice reforms during the dark polar winter, but it may not be as thick as previous years and may not last as long this summer.
Correction: … 0.5 to 1 million *square* kilometers …
Bob Kelly’s link notes:
January 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites, was below the 1979-2000 mean, but greater than the previous four years. Sea ice extent for January has decreased at a rate of 3.2%/decade (since satellite records began in 1979) as temperatures in the high latitude Northern Hemisphere have risen at a rate of approximately 0.37°C/decade over the same period.
Meanwhile, the January 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was much above the 1979-2000 mean. This was the largest sea ice extent in January over the 30-year historical period. Sea ice extent for January has increased at a rate of 1.9%/decade.
So … northern ice is shrinking while southern ice is growing (and even northern ice is doing better this year than it did in the past four years) … that hardly seems to be justification for the painfully draconian measures that I believe would be necessary to reduce carbon emissions enough to actually appease the global warming alarmists.
No one on this thread has suggested that such reductions can be achieved in any less-painful manner … if they could, I’d be all for such carbon reductions too–but barring a massive and very rapid buildup of nuclear energy–something which many of the global warmers also oppose, though some are coming around–our nation needs to continue burning carbon to maintain a decent standard of living. Those who suggest otherwise are unrealistic or untruthful.
Robert — As it turns out, climate scientists are not idiots. They actually know what is going on down there in Antarctica. And their models explain it without much difficulty:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/
Here’s the summary:
Despite the recent announcement that the discharge from some Antarctic glaciers is accelerating, we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century.
Robert, my insinuation was pointed, though I confess I was a little embarassed for you quoting an article that proclaimed that “almost all” of last year’s ice came back–in the middle of the polar winter. I wouldn’t expect a right-of-center news organ to get it completely right–even after combing through lots and lots of science stuff in the attempt.
Like you, I think there are some good reasons to cut back on carbon emissions. I’m convinced there’s a scientific reason mainly because of the inept arguments flying up in face of climate change. The oil company shills have already changed their tune from “there is no warming” to “there’s warming, but not a darn thing we can do about it, so let’s maximize our profit margins while we can.”
I don’t have a problem with dismissing the draconian moonbats from the discussion table if we could get rid of Our Corporate Masters in the bargain and have a discussion among people who understand the problem and have a prayer of accomplishing something from this mess.
Robert,
That global warming has become a football in the hands of unscrupulous politicians is no reason to reject the findings of scientists who have no ax to grind, except that they too have children and grandchildren whom they want to protect from real dangers. There is a consensus world wide of eminent scientists who are of the opinion that the severe, even catastrophic changes in weather are probably caused at least in part by burning fossil fuels. Yes, it also seems to be true that our adjusting our fossil fuel use will not make enough difference to change the weather patterns appreciably. All the more reason for more R and D about the problems.
You seem to think that there is no urgency about this matter. One major catastrophe has already occurred in the U.S. I’m from New Orleans, and I know. It’s also true that simply watching New Orleans flooding on TV won’t give you adequate understanding of the magnitude of the destruction of 3/4 of a major city. That’s why I encourage people to come down and take a misery tour
Hurricanes aren’t the only imminent danger. Atlanta is running out of water. It is so bad that Georgia is thinking of suing Tennessee to change the southern boundary of Tennessee so more water can be diverted intoo Georgia. And for some years now water rights have been a huge area of contention in the West. Not to mention the destruction by fires in California.
It is later than you think.
What very few seem to want to admit is that nothing short of a world-wide police state could possibly bring about the reduction in “pollutants” that, among others, Al Gore asserts that we need. A couple of years ago he said we have no more than ten years to do so, or we are doomed. Well, that leaves about eight more to go until doomsday. Will we have to build concentration camps for dissenters? You bet. Anybody out there want to live in a police state administered by the United Nations? I don’t.
Bob,
It’s true that opinions about global warming range from “there’s no big reason to worry” and “doomsday is tomorrow”. It is also true that intellligent people can go into severe denial when confronted with problems of this purported magnitude, and it’s also true that other neurotics love to play Cassandra
But Katrina was more than a scientific anecdote, an exceptional happening that the scientists did not expect. Many knowlwedgeable scientists *did* expect it. Our local paper the Times-Picayune wrote a many-page series about what was going to happen two years before Katrina happened, and Nature Magazine, the one that scientists read, also predicted it. As I remember the only political question in the Times-Picayune article involved the verifiable fact that Bush had cut monies for levee maintenance. I submit that he and his cohorts have a very great deal to answer for morally.
Or *do* we have a *right* at this point in history to ignore what highly competentt, independ4ent scientists tell us about nature? I think not — no more than we have the right to ignore the diagnoses of our doctors when our children are dependent on us. Yes, we can and should criticize the logic of the climatologists — all one has to do is be competent in logic. But may we ignore them? I think that’s sinful. Come on down and see why.
It’s not as if this whole global problem of fuel scarcity was not predicted a long time ago by knowledgeable people. The Club of Rome predicted it as far back as 1972. And we largely have ignored what this group of *both* academic scientists and super-big businessmen had to say. We all have a lot to answer for.
Ann:
After Katrina, the climatologists predicted that the next hurricane season would be even worse, and the one after that, and….
Alas, the next season came and went, and it was very tame. No major hurricanes. And last year’s season was also very mild. What’s the point? That these folks think they have a handle, but don’t. Their computer models are sort of, er, faulty.
As to our “rights”, are you speaking of our constitutional rights to free speech or that nebulous concept of “moral” rights? I’ll answer the first part: We all have a constitutional right to dissent from the scientific consensus; I can’t address the issue of “moral” rights since that phrase has not been defined for all belief systems.
Your statement,
“Yes, we can and should criticize the logic of the climatologists — all one has to do is be competent in logic. But may we ignore them? I think that’s sinful.”
needs comment. You’re right about criticizing the logic of climatologists, but you left out the premises upon which their logic is built. What are their premises, and are those premises sound?
By the way, your own statement,
“Yes, the problem of [climate] change is a daunting one. It seems that that climatologists have to deal with a part of the world with more unpredictable variables than any other science — with the apparent fact that the shape of weather events is determined by facts arising from realities which are largely chaotic. Perhaps generalizations about weather *can’t* be made”
seems to cut the ground out from under you.
The logic of climatologists is based on the sound physics of effects of trace atmospheric gases on heating and cooling of the atmosphere and oceans. While the day-to-day weather is highly variable, the overall climate is more predictable, especially when we unbalance the factors that affect our climate by the addition of more “greenhouse” gases. Even year to year changes don’t move in only one direction year after year, as short term factors play an important role in what we see for our weather.
Two years of “near normal” hurricane activity (see…
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/hurrsummary_2007.pdf after three “hyperactive” seasons, does not mean that the global warming’s effects on hurricane formation and strength is ended.
Hey, I’m digging out from eight inches of snow after temperatures in the 60s a week ago. That doesn’t mean that summer isn’t coming.
Bob Kelly:
You said,
“Two years of “near normal” hurricane activity (see…
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/hurrsummary_2007.pdf after three “hyperactive” seasons, does not mean that the global warming’s effects on hurricane formation and strength is ended.”
But the people who are predicting doom are the same ones who predicted that 2006 and 2007 would be even worse hurricane seasons. These are your experts Bob> How come they didn’t know that,
“Even year to year changes don’t move in only one direction year after year, as short term factors play an important role in what we see for our weather” (your words). If they are really competent, how did they make such a mistake?
“But the people who are predicting doom are the same ones who predicted that 2006 and 2007 would be even worse hurricane seasons. These are your experts Bob? How come they didn’t know that, ‘Even year to year changes don’t move in only one direction year after year, as short term factors play an important role in what we see for our weather’ (your words). If they are really competent, how did they make such a mistake?”
I don’t know that climatologists would have much to say about hurricane seasons. Hurricanes are weather, after all, not climate. I also remember hearing dire hurricane predictions, but I don’t know I heard it from all the same people pounding on climate change. Some? Perhaps. It seems meteorologists were more concerned about it, and while they do have opinions about climate change, too, they aren’t necessarily experts at it.
I suppose we can check credentials and see if anybody didn’t predict bad hurricane seasons in ’06 and ’07, admit them to the table.
A useful approach for anyone trying to discern the best evidence on this issue is to learn names, attaching people to positions and following the ones who argue with the most sense and clarity. As long as climatologists are considered “they” or “them” not only does it keep the debate unnecessarily adversarial, but it prevents people from pinning down particulars on individuals, and sorting through the mess.
I suppose my question of climate change skeptics is this: Have you ever read any of the popular science books on climate change? I’ve seen a lot out there that avoids alarmism and sticks to a dispassionate coverage of fact.
Actually, they did not say that 2006 and 2007 would be worse than 2005.
See the National Hurricane Center forecast and results archives at
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane-archive.shtml .
It’s true that the forecast *was* for above average, particularly in 2007, which was “only” a normal year. As I said, year-to-year forecasting is harder than the overall trend.
The models used for long-term climate forecasting are different than the methods used for year-to-year forecasting. They are aiming at the long-term trends, more so than the year to year differences. The longer the time period, the more the noise of each year averages out. For example, I wouldn’t count on every one of the next twelve months recording above normal temperatures, but there is still an overall warming going on. And it’s not just in the temperature signal, but in the ice, permafrost, glaciers, ocean acidity and other factors that point toward increasing effects from the increases in greenhouse gases.
Bob,
The forecasts of the National Weather Service are statements of the *probability* of hurricanes. They do not, not, not claim to predict events the way that physics or chemistry do. However, the data they draw upon is quite real, and patterns of probable occurrences have been observed,. Just as you can say that the probability of your shooting yourself playing Russian roulette are 1 in 6, so the statements of the hurricane forcasters are statements of how many hurricanes there will *probably* be in a given year..
It’s quite *possible* that you could pull the trigger 20 or even 100 times and not shoot yourself, but would this be rational behavior? Of course not. And it isn’t rational behavior to ignore the forecasts of probable bad weather by the meteorologists.
Yes, you can choose not to undergo medical treatment for yourself quite legally, but if you have two small kids and no wife, would you be morally justified in refusing needed treatment for a gangrenous leg because you’re afraid of knives? I think not. The law also recognizes that parents who do not get needed medical care for their children are negligent, even though the medical care itself is a matter of more or less probability
Yes, I did say that the fundamental bits of matter in the universe act chaotically — but not totally so. They tend to order, even though the scientists do not know why. However, the fact that nature on a sub-atomic level exhibits much chaos does not mean that on a gross level is it disordered. On the contrary, on a gross level, Newton’s laws generally still hold. They’re why if you set your foot on the floor it most probably won’t go through the floor.f
There’s this old French say, Bob — God always forgives, Nature never does. So we’d best pay attention to her laws, more or less probably though they be..
Todd should save his embarassment for himself–if the arctic ice were just back to normal, I wouldn’t have sent the link. But the ice is more than 1/3 MORE than normal, which hardly supports the gloom and doom argument.
Ann: while I deeply love New Orleans and greatly sympathize with whatever personal losses you suffered, the facts are that the flood protection systems in that city simply weren’t adequate. The heights of flood protection walls had subsided over the years so that they weren’t even as high as they were supposed to be, other ill-though-out measures acted like giant funnels to force the water higher than it would have surged on its own, etc. Remember: the French Quarter and other older parts of the city–those above sea level–did NOT flood. Only the low-lying sections did, sections that were filled with poorer people who did not have access to vehciles to escape … New orleans was a man-made tragedy–but it wasn’t the fault of global warming.
Robert, your linked article says it is Antarctic ice which is 1/3 more than normal. It is Arctic ice which is “almost” back to normal, according to your own link. Still the most helpful scientific comparisons are more than two. Same-date plots, maybe several spread out over several decades: that gives a helpful indication of climate change or stability.
If we’re comparing Antarctic ice this winter compared to last winter, we’re talking weather. And that’s not a part of serious discussion. But then I wouldn’t expect serious science from a msm organ like this London periodical.
That was a case of typing too quickly–I had meant to say “polar ice” to encompass both arctic and antarctic, and then note that the antarctic is much more than normal … but I agree we need to wait several decades to draw any conclusions–the problem is that the Al Gore/Kyoto crowd don’t want to wait several decades … their “solutions” would shut down the US economy and way of life while giving a free pass to India, China, etc. …
The key point is not what’s happening to the climate or even what is the cause (those will remain hotly debated points for years to come) … The key question is what do we do about it … and that’s where the fanatics are driving the process. But as I and others here have noted, there is no realistic way to achieve the carbon reductions being called for except by the most dratsic means imaginable … since a majority of voters will not vote for such drastic means (regardless of how they answer opinion polls), the steps supposedly necessary for human survival will not be enacted democratically–hence, the obvious “need” for a dictatorship of the environmentalists … say hello to the Green Gestapo… or does anyone who supports carbon reductions actually know of a relatively easy, painless way to accomplish the goals that few if any nations (even those who publicly back Kyoto) are even close to achieving?
As a global-warming-hysteria doubter, I do NOT need to propose any alternatives since I do not believe in their predictions of doom and gloom–but those who do feel global warming is a vital issue need to find some viable proposals if they wish to convince the public to follow their lead.
Robert — you really are impervious to the facts. Click the link I posted above. Increasing ice levels in the south is consistent with climate warming models and is actually a BAD sign.
Robert, you can relax. International corporations aren’t going to be shutting down any part of the world’s economy. We have more to fear from a Depression than from carbon collapse.
I disagree about the need to wait, as more data is gathered. We have data on quite a bit already–that’s what the climatologists already provide. My criticism is with your two-point approach. If you want to be taken seriously, you’re going to have to do better than misquoting the London Daily Express.
Next skeptic, please.
On the contrary, it is the global warming hysterics who refuse to face the facts– the facts that they offer no solutions that the American public will actually support that would make any difference in any of this, Remember that Kyoto–which the public strongly opposes–was never expected to achieve much in actual terms, it was just supposed to be a first step, and one which has proven too large for almost any country to take.
Unless you are willing to rapidly ramp up nuclear power (which most environmentalists are not) or try to develop some of the more exotic proposals (giant solar power satellites that beam microwave energy directly to the earth), the so-called solutions all require the West to stop using as much energy as it does now while the devloping world continues to burn as much carbon as it wants … that’s a political “solution,” aimed at redistributing wealth and resources, not a scientific one … likewise the kooky ideas out there to stop importing flowers from Africa (because of the carbon costs of flying the flowers around) or not turning on Christmas lights because of the carbon spent in generating electricity (and these are all real-world examples of the wacky ideas being suggested)
You canot realistically expect Americans to turn off one lightbulb to prevent tiny south seas islands they’ve never even heard of from sinking into the sea–it just won’t happen. So come up with a realistic set of solutions that enable us to use MORE energy in the future than we use today (because that’s the reality–we will need more and more and more energy as our population and economy grow) … I already support increased nuclear power as well as solar satellites, plus I strongly believe that we can find a technological way to “scrub” the air clean of greenhouse gasses if we put our minds and money to it, so my positions are all open and honest … it’s the global warming hysterics who are being dishonest and refusing to accept the facts that their plans cannot be achieved democratically and thus only some form of Environmental fascism will get the results they think are necessary–but they shouldn’t be surprised when people fight them tooth and nail.
It’s not a good idea to reject reality because we are afraid of the measures we will need to reduce our effects on Earth’s climate system. Yes, it’s not going to be easy. Yes, be concerned about crazies who use this global crisis to impose an order of their choosing. Also be afraid of those who are so entrenched that they fight any change. They use isolated facts to assure us the problem isn’t as real as our observations tell us it is or will not be as bad as the physics-based projections say it will get.
Also, people who use language like “Environmental fascism” and the “Green Gestapo” might be mistaken for one of the “crazies”. Don’t like extremists? Then be the positive force to address this problem.
The longer we wait, the harder the choices are going to be. And the more likely that the only people who will be able to build enough momentum to address global climate change will be extremists.
Bob: You said,
“The longer we wait, the harder the choices are going to be. And the more likely that the only people who will be able to build enough momentum to address global climate change will be extremists.”
But I know and you know that in a democracy, the steps asserted as being required (in the next 10-2 = 8 years by Senator Gore) are simply not going to be implemented. Only a suspension of all constitutional rights, in the U.S., would give the government sufficient power and elbow room to do so. This is a possibility that makes liberals cringe: They will have to do what they vowed never to do.
Marxists, however, will be delighted. Life will be infused into a Frankenstein’s monster wedding between Marxism and extreme environmentalism. We can call it “Enviromarxism”.
The lumpen-proletariat (those who dissent) can be segregated out of decent society and re-educated in special camps set up for that specific purpose. Oh the wonders we will see…
Suspending all constitutional rights or avoiding disastrous effects of global climate change…. Let’s avoid either road.
It’s time to pray to Fulton Sheen. I’ve read that he always looked for the “middle way” to solve problems. This isn’t going to be easy and I think asking Archbishop Sheen’s intercession and inspiration will help us all in maintaining liberty and providing global equity, two things Archbishop Sheen understood well.
Bob:
That’s not at all a bad idea. I’m with you.