However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
Yeah, right. You're authoritative sources count the global cooling articles from back then just like they count the 97% global warming articles now.
'Anthropocene' Term Gains Traction As Human Impacts On Planet Become Clearer | By By SETH BORENSTEIN Posted: 10/14/2014 3:18 am EDT Updated: 10/14/2014 12:56 pm EDT WASHINGTON (AP) — People are changing Earth so much, warming and polluting it, that many scientists are turning to a new way to describe the time we live in. They're calling it the Anthropocene — the age of humans. Though most non-experts don't realize it, science calls the past 12,000 years the Holocene, Greek for "entirely recent." But the way humans and their industries are altering the planet, especially its climate, has caused an increasing number of scientists to use the word Anthropocene to better describe when and where we are. "We're changing the Earth. There is no question about that, I've seen it from space," said eight-time spacewalking astronaut John Grunsfeld, now associate administrator for science at NASA. He said that when he looked down from orbit, there was no place he could see on the planet that didn't have the mark of man. So he uses the term Anthropocene, he said, "because we're intelligent enough to recognize it." Grunsfeld was in the audience of a "Living in the Anthropocene" symposium put on last week by the Smithsonian. Meanwhile, the American Association for the Advancement of Science is displaying an art exhibit, "Fossils of the Anthropocene." More than 500 scientific studies have been published this year referring to the current time period as the Anthropocene. And on Friday the Anthropocene Working Group ramps up its efforts to change the era's name with a meeting at a Berlin museum. The movement was jump-started and the name coined by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen in 2000, according to Australian National University scientist Will Steffen. Geologists often mark new scientific time periods with what they call a golden spike — really more of a bronze disk in the rock layer somewhere that physically points out where one scientific time period ends and another begins, said Harvard University's Andrew Knoll, who supports the idea because "humans have become a geologic force on the planet. The age we are living now in is really distinct." But instead of a golden spike in rock, "it's going to be a layer of plastic that covers the planet, if not a layer of (heat-trapping) carbon," said W. John Kress, acting undersecretary of science for the Smithsonian. Kress said the Smithsonian is embracing the term because "for us it kind of combines the scientific and the cultural in one word." It's an ugly word, one many people don't understand, and it's even hard to pronounce, Kress admitted. (It's AN'-thruh-poh-seen.) That's why when he opened the Smithsonian's symposium, he said, "We are living in the Anthropocene," then quickly added, "the age of humans." "Never in its 4.6 billion-year-old history has the Earth been so affected by one species as it is being affected now by humans," Kress said. Steffen, one of the main leaders of the Anthropocene movement, said in an email that the age of humans is more than just climate change. It includes ozone loss, disruption of nitrogen and phosphorous cycles that are causing dead zones, changes in water, acidification of the ocean, endocrine disruptors and deforestation. Steffen said there's no scientific consensus for the term Anthropocene yet, but he sees support growing. To become official it has to be approved by the International Union of Geological Sciences' Commission on Stratigraphy. That process is detailed and slow, said Harvard's Kroll, who spearheaded the last successful effort to add a new time period — the little known Ediacaran period, about 600 million years ago. It took him 15 years. The head of that deciding committee, Stan Finney at California State University at Long Beach, said in an interview that he is often called "the biggest critic" of the Anthropocene term. He said while there's no doubt humans are dramatically changing the planet, creating a new geologic time period requires detailed scientific records, mostly based on what is in rocks. Supporters also don't agree on when the Anthropocene starts. Suggestions include the start of farming, industrialization and the use of the atomic bomb. The Geological Society of America hasn't taken up the term yet, but may soon start paying attention to the concept, said society president Hap McSween of the University of Tennessee. "I actually think it's a great idea," McSween said. "Humans are profoundly affecting the environment, probably as much as natural events have in the past. And when effects become profound enough, we draw a new boundary and make it a period. ... It's a good way to point out the environmental havoc that humans are causing."
Once again to re-cycle complete B.S from Peterson's debunked 2008 paper. In previous posts in the P&R forum you were provided a list of several hundred peer reviewed scientific global cooling papers written in the 1970s - but you keep ignoring this reality and spewing nonsense.
It is sad to think that you indulge in the fantasy that only 68 papers on climate change were written between 1965 to 1979 - it was quite a newsworthy topic at the time. It is even more sad that you can't even search the web to easily find more than 200 peer reviewed scientific papers written in the 1970s supporting global cooling.
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[1] Wikipedia. If it's wrong, feel free to edit it.
Yes, NEWS worthy you asshole. See the NEWS part? The PEER REVIEWED papers were another thing. You really have no interest in the facts do you? In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…" This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences:"...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.