The US National Science Board (part of the National Science Foundation) issued a report titled Science and the Challenges Ahead that makes six interesting science-based observations and predictions. (Three relevant paragraphs from pages 24-25 of the linked document are reproduced here. Click on image to make it larger.)Direct quotes are indicated by numbered arrows:
1- "Human activity may be involved on an even broader scale in changing the global climate."
2- "During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen ..."
3- "... there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures ...
4- "... activities of the expanding human population - especially those involved with the burning of fossil fuels - raised the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, which acts as a 'greenhouse' ..."
5- "But simulataneously ... growing industrialization and the spread of agriculture introduced increasing quantities of dust into the atmosphere which reduced the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth. ... the cooling effect of the dust particles more than compensated for the warming effect of the carbon dioxide, and world temperature began to fall."
6- "Several consequences [of colder temperatures] have been observed: ... southward intrusion of sea-ice ... unusually large numbers of severe storms ... development of a calamitous drought belt extending around the world ..."
Oh, I forgot to mention, the report was issued in 1974! (Well before Climategate :^)
The more things change,
the more they remain the same!
Warming, cooling, ... whatever - it is always MAN's fault!
(And, of course, WOMAN's too :^)
Could it be NATURAL CYCLES not within Human Control?
Nope - No grant money in that!
Ira Glickstein
3 comments:
Much appreciated, Ira. A useful reference! The tenor of the MSM that I have seen on the 70's 'global cooling' threat is that it was a media event - and that few scientists believed it. I think I even heard Hansen say that in an interview (but I can't attribute that).
Prof. Stephen Schneider of Stanford is a very outspoken climate extremist. Fortunately, some of his 'extreme cooling threat' public presentations from the 70's are captured on YouTube.
Search for Stephen Schneider (or Steve Schneider) to get a huge sampling of his tread (in this case, in flip-flops).
Search for 'Stephen Schneider: Not Evil Just Wrong' to get a recent documentary summary of it, but if you think this is biased, search for 'Coming Global Ice Age' in 3 parts. Narrated by Leonard Nimoy, it's a good example of how powerful a message the media can portray.
By the way, on his own website, Schneider he quotes The New Republic's interview with him as being 'One of the world's leading climatologists'
Who knew that riding the bandwagon would make such a good career!
They say that Crow can be pretty palatable, properly prepared. I'm going to have to find out I guess.
I have listened pretty carefully to all three parts of "The Coming Iceage" that I referred to previously. There are several climate scientists commenting on the data pointing to a percipitious drop in arctic temperatures and the likelyhood of a new ice age.
However the brief segment in Part 3 of 3 interviewing Schneider exonerates him from the 'bandwagon' I accused him of. Too quick to accept comments of others - a common mistake I seem to make.
(Schneider did contribute to the Global Cooling literature but he seems to have consistently favored caution - and in the referenced movie, he emphasized that climate models were too primitive (then anyway) to advise action to counteract cooling.)
And for what it's worth, 'Old Crow,' my considered choice over blackbirds in a pie, is not something I highly recommend.
Hopefully as many people are reading this blog entry as are commenting on it! (crooked smile)
Thanks Rick for your comments and I hope you remove the feathers before you roast that crow :^)
As the Topic that starts this thread indicates, even the best science taxpayer money can afford may peer-review and publish incorrect assumptions, namely:
1) A recent, prolonged cooling (or warming) trend will continue for our lifetimes,
2) Human actions are the primary cause of Global Cooling (or Warming),
3) Expanding human populations and industrialization and the resultant dust and air pollution are the main cause of cooling (and our unprecedented burning of fossil fuels and resultant "greenhouse" CO2 is the main cause of warming),
4) Severe storms and calamitous drought will be the ultimate result of the Global Cooling (or Warming).
The statements above reflect the supposed scientific consensus of the 1970's and the parentheical comments the exactly opposite supposed consensus of the 1990's and 2000's.
Note especially that BOTH predict calamitous drought and severe storms when the global temperature goes down (or up). Apparently PhD scientists can have it both ways! (Check their outstanding credentials on both the 1974 National Science Board report and the IPCC reports.)
And, the alarmists (like "Chicken Little" when he was hit on the head by a falling acorn ) take every single weather-related disaster that happens to occur as another sign that their predictions are true ("the sky is falling").
Of course, the "deniers" today take every severe snowstorm or record cool snap as proof Global Warming is over and we are headed for severe cooling!
Both extremes are wrong.
No one knows what tomorrow will bring (not even the weather bureau) but it is prudent to assume it will be much like today, perhaps a bit warmer or cooler, wetter or dryer, windier or calmer*. Yes, we can talk about the weather (or climate), but we can't do anything about it (or at least not that much compared to Natural Cycles).
Ira Glickstein
*I use my trusty Native American weather rock that hangs outside the window to determine the weather: If it is swinging, it is windy, if it is shiny it is raining, if it is white it is snowing, if I can't see it it is foggy, ...
Post a Comment