1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. Climate Myth... Ice age predicted in the 70s "[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice) Mainstream Media What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production." "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture: "When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." Peer-Reviewed Literature 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. Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008). Scientific Consensus 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. In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Protection Agency NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics National Center for Atmospheric Research American Meteorological Society The Royal Society of the UK Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society American Association for the Advancement of Science
So all you can do is attack the source and not dispute the evidence. Do you deny any of the listed 220+ scientific papers written in the 1965 to 1979 support global cooling? The climate alarmists have been falsely claiming only 7 papers written in this time period support global cooling. Obviously this is quite incorrect. When are you going to start dealing with facts, real evidence, original unaltered data, and the truth regarding "climate change" instead of the fantasies that you continually promote?
Doubling Down On Dud Projections That the alarmists' predictions of soaring temperatures have proven consistently at odds with reality comes as no surprise. What should shock and appall taxpayers underwriting these lab-coated exercises in error is just how grossly out of whack the predictions for Australia have been http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/04/doubling-dud-projections/ The IPCC’s latest suite of climate models overstate, by more than double, the actual warming in Australia from January 1979 to January 2014. This is the conclusion from expert analysis by US-based independent climate researcher Bob Tisdale.[1] At Quadrant’s request, Tisdale has now updated graphs for Australia from his 2013 book Climate Models Fail.[2] Tisdale, with a background in fluid dynamics, has published two other e-books on climate models and global warming, and regularly contributes to the world’s top-ranking climate blog, Watts Up With That. The models’ overstated warming on a global basis is no longer contentious. As even the 5th IPCC report acknowledges, from 1998-2012 the simulations of 111 out of its 114 climate models exaggerated the global warming trend. The IPCC blames a variety of factors, including natural variability, solar, volcanic and aerosol impacts, and over-cooking of the all-important climate sensitivity to CO2 increases.[3] So much for ‘settled’ climate science. Tisdale’s graphic for the Australian mismatch between IPCC modelling (red) and reality (blue) is below, including the warming rate trend lines.[4] The latest suite of IPCC models (CMIP5) actually performs worse for southern regions (and globally) than did the previous generation of IPCC models (CMIP3), says Tisdale, who also has checked the performance of the latest CSIRO Mark 3 6.0 climate model (red), documenting its mismatch with Bureau of Meteorology actual temperature anomaly data (brown).[5] Tisdale says, “The CSIRO model more than doubles the observed warming rate for Australia since 1979. It’s not as bad as the mean of all of the models used by the IPCC, but more than doubling the actual warming rate is still a very bad performance, especially apropos of the CSIRO’s own country.” The CSIRO model also fails in assessing warming rates for the whole Southern Hemisphere land masses. It gets the rate too hot by a factor of almost two. [graph below].[6] By way of consistency, the IPCC model suite does the same. (More at above url)
I deny that a majority of science papers - as opposed to the articles in Times magazine that you read - predicted global cooling. That is objectively factually in real life not true. What IS true is that the majority of climatologists in the seventies predicted warming, and I posted proof that this is true. And at any rate, it's academic and just another example of the small thread of disinformation that denier idiots cling to. Sort of like their guns and bibles. That was then, this is now. Please try to keep up. I realize that staying current is difficult for righties to do. The conservative brain, by nature, resists change.
Provide a list of scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 that predict global warming. You have provided no evidence to support your claims. I have provided a list of over 220 scientific papers written from 1965 to 1979 that support global cooling. I know that you will be only able to provide 45 papers as most that support global warming from this time period. This means that there is a 83% consensus among scientists in the 1970s that global cooling was the issue. I have also provided firm evidence of how global warming alarmists have re-written history on wiki-pedia and put out papers that fabricate the concept that a global warming consensus existed in the 1970s. The brains of realistic people and good scientists seek the truth based on factual data.
No you haven't. You think you have but you haven't. And percent of scientists is not the same as number of papers, nitwit. The majority of SCIENTISTS thought warming slightly more likely but there was no consensus at the time. 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…" Compared to today... U.S. National Academy of Sciences "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." During the seventies NO science organization in the world said that global warming was true. Today essentially every science org in the world have stated that man made global warming is true. So please stop it. Admit being wrong and move on righty. I am getting tired of having to constantly correct your ignorance. You're like a Trump with all the lies and ignorance. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/?TB_iframe=true&width=337.5&height=600.3
Yes the world WAS undergoing a cooling trend. However climatologists were unsure if it would continue or if CO2 would reverse it. In fact Exxon scientists knew early on that warming was likely from CO2 emissions. From the CIA paper cited above, page 2 of Annex 2 Bryson estimates that transparency was little affected by man's activities until about 1930 but that since then, man-caused dust has increased rapidly.* And, since the mid-194O's volcanic activity has again become important. According· to his theory, the earth would have cooled due to this dust even more than it has if it had not been for measurable and increasing amounts of carbon dioxide which man has put into the atmosphere by burning fuel (the greenhouse effect).
"percent of scientists is not the same as number of papers" Amusing... this coming from the guy who regularly posts Cook's 97% piue chart regarding the number of science papers "supporting" global warming. Both the number of papers and the number of scientists supporting global cooling from 1965 to 1979 was significantly greater than the number supporting warming. Sadly... both camps are wrong and drive completely misguided government policy. The impact that mankind has on the global warming or cooling of the planet is minuscule. Global warming and cooling is simply natural variation which has occurred for thousands of years. Government money would be best spent on learning how to live and cope with these natural cycles of global warming and cooling.