[Justin7]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...970s_never_was

Myth often cited by global warming skeptics debunked

* CHILLING POSSIBILITIES
* Read the original article on Climate Change as it was posted in the 1975 edition of Science News.

The reasons to disbelieve that humans are causing global warming are many and varied, skeptics say. For example: Natural factors such as long-term variations in solar radiation are causing the rise in worldwide average temperature. The urban heat island effect is skewing modern weather data, so the warming observed in recent decades isn’t real. And besides, not long ago experts all believed the Earth was cooling, not warming.

Actually, research has shown that many such ideas are bogus. While changes in solar output have slightly increased global average temperature since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the planet-warming effect of man-made greenhouse gases is about 20 times larger (“Heated dispute” letter, SN: 10/27/07, p. 271). And although cities are warmer than neighboring rural areas, that phenomenon doesn’t mask recent warming trends in long-established cities (“Don’t blame the cities,” SN Online: 9/5/08).

Now, new research also skewers the global warming skeptics’ claim that, in the 1970s, scientists believed that an ice age was imminent. Researchers of the day had discovered that Earth had been cooling since the 1940s. Some believed that continued increases in the amount of planet-cooling aerosols kicked up or emitted by human activity — dust and smog, for example — could easily tip the planet into an ever-deepening cycle of cooling, skeptics have repeatedly pointed out. That wave of concern was obviously a false alarm, the skeptics note, so maybe today’s scientists are equally mistaken about global warming.

Not true, climatologist Thomas C. Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and his colleagues report in the September Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The team’s survey of major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979 found that only seven articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions.

The findings were “a surprise to us,” Peterson says. For decades the “skeptics had repeated their argument so often and so strongly that we misremembered the tenor of the times.”

When these skeptics mention previous concerns about global cooling, they typically cite media reports from the 1970s rather than journal papers —“a part of their tremendous smoke screen on this issue,” says Peterson. Among major magazines, Time and Newsweek ran articles expressing concern about the previous decades’ cooling trend, juxtaposing the specter of decreased food production with rising global population.
access
CRYING WOLF?Global warming naysayers point to past media coverage of cooling trends to suggest the fallibility of today’s climatologists. But most evidence suggested a warmer future. Science News Archives, Courtesy of Newsweek

But even a cursory review of 1970s media accounts shows that there was no consensus about global cooling among journalists, either, Peterson says. In May 1975, the headline of a New York Times article warned that “major cooling may be ahead.” Three months later, another headline in the same paper — atop a feature written by the same reporter — stated that two recent journal articles “counter [the] view that [a] cold period is due.”

When skeptics do cite a research paper that predicted the possibility of global cooling, it is almost invariably a 1971 article in Science coauthored by Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider, then a graduate student at Columbia University. That paper suggested that a fourfold increase in atmospheric aerosols could increase worldwide cooling enough to trigger an ice age.

But soon after the paper was published, new information emerged, Schneider says. First, the global cooling effect of aerosols wasn’t as large as estimated, in part because the tiny particles appeared in high concentrations over only about one-fifth of the planet, primarily around major cities. Second, Schneider adds, scientists discovered that many other minor constituents of the atmosphere — including methane, ozone and man-made gases such as chlorofluorocarbons — have the same warming effect that carbon dioxide does.

By the late 1970s, these realizations, along with insights from studies of the cooling effects of aerosols spewed from an Indonesian volcano in 1963, helped climatologists better estimate the balance between greenhouse gas warming and aerosol-induced cooling. This rapid evolution of understanding, says Schneider, is a testament to the self-correcting nature of the scientific process — a question is posed, data are collected, analyses are performed and then opinions and theories are modified, if need be, based on results of the research.

When global warming skeptics draw misleading comparisons between scientists’ nascent understanding of climate processes in the 1970s and their level of knowledge today, “it’s absolute nonsense,” Schneider says. Back then, scientists were just beginning to study climate trends and their causes, and the probability of finding evidence to disprove a particular hypothesis was relatively high. Nowadays, he contends, “the likelihood of new evidence to overthrow the concept of global warming is small. Warming is virtually certain.”

Most climatologists have long shared a feeling that discussions in the 1970s about global cooling were common in the media but not in scientific journals, says Richard Somerville, a climatologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. Peterson’s research “is a levelheaded, not strident” documentation of that contention. Somerville says the new findings “will not stop the critics [of global warming] from repeating their myth, but for people who are willing to listen with an open mind, this is a nice piece of work.”

Despite the lopsided tally of journal articles that predicted global warming versus those that foretold a long-term cooling trend, the new findings may not sway many hard-core skeptics, says Alan Robock, an atmospheric scientist at Rutgers–New Brunswick in New Jersey. Peterson “is wasting his time by addressing these global warming critics,” he says. “There are only a few of them.”

[Justin7]

My note - most of these global warming critics were partisan. The scientific community has accepted global warming as man-made. You're kidding yourself and misleading the public if you argue otherwise.

[element1286]

That didn't convince me. There was no scientific evidence in there. It was just referring to how the media perceived the global cooling debate in the 70's.

Saying the case is closed does immediately discredits further scientific research into contradictory opinions, which is not a good thing.

And you cannot tell me that people that believe in global warming have political agendas as well.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by element1286

That didn't convince me. There was no scientific evidence in there. It was just referring to how the media perceived the global cooling debate in the 70's.

Saying the case is closed does immediately discredits further scientific research into contradictory opinions, which is not a good thing.

And you cannot tell me that people that believe in global warming have political agendas as well.

Would you like peer-reviewed journals on the issue?

We certainly do have an agenda. Lower emissions, reduce global warming.

[ryanXL977]

its not debateable
their are about 1% of the worlds poulation who doesnt believe in this, and they all live here and have been told these lies by polluting companies. the debate is done. ask any geologist, etc. my father is the chair of geosciences and oceanography at UT dallas, this shit isnt debated by anyone with any brains. it is man made

[Willie Bee]

The planet would probably be in a warming cycle at this time without man being on this earth. But there's very little doubt in my mind that humans have at least contributed to accelerating or pushing the warming to a greater extreme.

[smitch124]

I blame it on the sun.

[ryanXL977]

if you shit in your bed, your bed will stink
how can pollution not cause global warming
look at high altitude shots of any cold or lake region pre 1930 and now. its unreal

[fiveteamer]

I totally understand how and why the Vanderbilt's, Rockefeller's of the world try to debunk global warming. Makes perfect sense.

But why average people refuse to believe in global warming is something I'll never understand.

[Larry Sinclair]

Originally Posted by fiveteamer

I totally understand how and why the Vanderbilt's, Rockefeller's of the world try to debunk global warming. Makes perfect sense.

But why average people refuse to believe in global warming is something I'll never understand.

I blame Bush, Halliburton and big oil for the climate change on Jupiter:

For about 300 years Jupiter's banded atmosphere has shown a remarkable feature to telescopic viewers, a large swirling storm system known as The Great Red Spot. In 2006, another red storm system appeared, actually seen to form as smaller whitish oval-shaped storms merged and then developed the curious reddish hue. Now, Jupiter has a third red spot, again produced from a smaller whitish storm. All three are seen in this image made from data recorded on May 9 and 10 with the Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2. The spots extend above the surrounding clouds and their red color may be due to deeper material dredged up by the storms and exposed to ultraviolet light, but the exact chemical process is still unknown. For scale, the Great Red Spot has almost twice the diameter of planet Earth, making both new spots less than one Earth-diameter across. The newest red spot is on the far left (west), along the same band of clouds as the Great Red Spot and is drifting toward it. If the motion continues, the new spot will encounter the much larger storm system in August. Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html

[fiveteamer]

step away from the blog.

jackass.

[Deuce]

Man creates some pollution. Pollution not enough to effect world climate. Volcanoes create more pollutants in one single eruption then man has ever in the history of man on Earth.

[Justin7]

And this has what to do with Earth?

Or did you ignore the studies showing man's impact is 20 times as much as the changes in solar output?

[ryanXL977]

why is it so hard for people to separate politics from global warming
it is not a political issue

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by Deuce

Man creates some pollution. Pollution not enough to effect world climate. Volcanoes create more pollutants in one single eruption then man has ever in the history of man on Earth.

Pollution and global warming are two different things. The volcanic eruptions actually cause cooling - the sulfurs and ash anyway. CO2 is a much smaller component of volcanic discharge.

[Sinister Cat]

Originally Posted by ryanXL977

why is it so hard for people to separate politics from global warming
it is not a political issue

it shouldn't be, but unfortunately, lefties around the world discovered they could turn it into a religion and take advantage of it.

[ryanXL977]

lefties around the world? so scientists are all lefties? all governments are lefites? who tells you this stuff?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Originally Posted by Larry Sinclair

I blame Bush, Halliburton and big oil for the climate change on Jupiter:

For about 300 years Jupiter's banded atmosphere has shown a remarkable feature to telescopic viewers, a large swirling storm system known as The Great Red Spot. In 2006, another red storm system appeared, actually seen to form as smaller whitish oval-shaped storms merged and then developed the curious reddish hue. Now, Jupiter has a third red spot, again produced from a smaller whitish storm. All three are seen in this image made from data recorded on May 9 and 10 with the Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2. The spots extend above the surrounding clouds and their red color may be due to deeper material dredged up by the storms and exposed to ultraviolet light, but the exact chemical process is still unknown. For scale, the Great Red Spot has almost twice the diameter of planet Earth, making both new spots less than one Earth-diameter across. The newest red spot is on the far left (west), along the same band of clouds as the Great Red Spot and is drifting toward it. If the motion continues, the new spot will encounter the much larger storm system in August. Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html

As soon as you can show me the data associated with volcanic activity on Jupiter (as well as it is documented on Earth) which indicates no natural phenominon that has caused this shift in climate change on Jupiter, then I will give your case an ounce of credibility. Until then, what are the stakes if you are wrong? If the vast majority of scientists and climatologists are wrong, we create an innovative industry that provides new technology and bolsters our economy by providing new jobs, all while weening ourselves off of foreign oil dependency. Now wouldn't that just be terrible?

[Sinister Cat]

Originally Posted by ryanXL977

lefties around the world? so scientists are all lefties? all governments are lefites? who tells you this stuff?

I'm not saying that scientists who have done research saying it exists are wrong or anything. I'm just saying that it's pretty obvious that politicians, and not just in the US, and who tend to lean to the left, have really latched onto this issue. It unfortunately makes supporters of their political opponents view anything to do with this issue with great skepticism.

[ryanXL977]

there are plenty of republicans who know global warming is real and admit it
just not this administration

[Rain Man]

Justin

I have absolutely no idea why you attempt to enlighten the same crowd that keeps exhibiting a proclivity to shunning anything that threatens to inch them ever closer to breaking out of the same kind of hard wired thinking that keeps most religions happy.

In any event, you are to be commended, but given the whole planet is on a yet to be determined countdown to when our collective ignorance exacts fair market price, just smile kindly at them and move to higher ground.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Actually, McCain, to his credit, even admits it. It's the Bush/Cheney oil barons who changed their position on the matter. Bush had even campaigned in 2000 to sign the Kyoto Protocol but flip-flopped when he got into office. Now all of these sheep actually buy into that baseless argument.

[element1286]

I think the main point is that no one knows.

Is it a non-issue? Probably not. Are the oceans going to rise 30 feet in the next 30 years? Probably not.

And it is reasonable to take steps to counteract carbon emissions. And we all know we need to move away from oil for the long run just in the economic sense.

I never understood why people talk in absolutes about this issue. If it was an imminent doomsday scenario, then we really don't have a chance to change it no matter what we do. If it not really a problem or a minor problem, then gradually getting away from dirty sources of energy should be fine.

[MonkeyF0cker]

It takes effort to get away from those "dirty sources of energy." Until certain members of our political machine stop impeding any efforts to do so, it will be rather difficult to make progress.

[losturmarbles]

dont worry in 30 years it will be

Warming climate ‘consensus’ of 2000s never was

[ryanXL977]

what have the conservatives ever been right about? name a few things? installing democracy? deficits dont matter? trickle down economics? abstinence education? military spending? made up wars? ignoring science?

[losturmarbles]

Originally Posted by smitch124

I blame it on the sun.

the sun causes the earth to warm/??? thats absurd.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Can someone please rationally explain to me the downside of attempting to innovate broad-scale, clean, alternative energy sources?

[ryanXL977]

if we had anything to show for the 5 trillion dollars bush spent, other than a failed war, it would be good. if we had used the money to buy infrastructure or start new energy, it would be ok
but we have nothing to show for the spending, nothing

[Data]

I just thought that this thread could have been much more on topic:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...g-summary.html

Betting Summary


To save people having to dredge through my blog and elsewhere for the "betting on climate change" stuff, I'll try to keep this article reasonably up-to-date as a set of links to relevant pages, both my own and those others have written.

Recent updates:
24/08/2005 The Bet hits the news-stands, first covered by Jim Giles in Nature and then David Adam in The Guardian.
7/07/2005 Some comments on the RC article and debate, and an update on the Bashkirtsev and Mashnich situation.
18/06/2005 The RealClimate article, plus Pielke and Stoat comments.


Me first of course :-)

Betting on Climate Change
An introduction, and the Lindzen bet.

Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenburger withdraw their previous offer.

Piers Corbyn's not interested.

Myron Ebell (challeged by George Monbiot).

Jaworowski disowns the solar cooling forecast.

Idso, Kininmonth and Mashnich all refuse to bet. Then Mashnich seems interested...maybe.

My first comments on Ron Bailey's article in "Reason".

Realclimate.org article, and my comments on the discussion that followed.

Bashkirtsev and Mashnich have agreed a bet!


Other related articles:

Ron Bailey's article in Reason, which in trying to be sceptical oversteps the mark in a few places. It still calls on the sceptics to "put up or shut up" though.

A brief mention on Chris Mooney's blog.

Brian Schmidt on "Backseat Driving" has comments here and here. He also amended Lindzen's Wikipedia page to mention the non-bet.

I even rate a brief mention on William Connolley's world famous mustelid farming site, in particular here, here and here (oh, and my real work too).

Roger Pielke Jr. has this article on his blog. He also wrote this article a few years ago, which talks about prediction markets more generally.

The Nature article that broke the story of my bet with Bashkirtsev and Mashnich. An article in The Guardian followed the next day. It's been mentioned in several blogs, including Slashdot, Deltoid, Marginal Revolution, Educated Guesswork, Technology Review, Reason, Backseat Driving,




posted by James Annan at Thursday, June 09, 2005

12 Comments:

Roger Pielke, Jr. said... James- This is really great stuff. I will discuss this over on our blog next week. Meantime, have a look at this:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/zi...editorial.html
11/6/05 4:22 AM coby said... James, have you tried Bob "warming stopped in 1998" Carter?
27/4/06 7:26 AM James Annan said... Coby,

Brian already tried him.
27/4/06 8:35 AM Happy said... was just researching some stuff about climate change and found this great site that raises money for conservation groups and greenhouse projects. They sell really cool casual clothing and donate 30% of the profits. This is exactly the kind of company that we should all be supporting these days. I thought others like me might want to know about it - check out www.fullystoked.com.
25/10/06 10:00 AM ankh said... From Hank Roberts---

I trust you've heard by now about this advertising/marketing expert at Wharton? He wants a bet on ten specified weather station temperature averages over ten years, with Al Gore. I guess Lord Whatsisname's handed off to him for now.

http://theclimatebet.com/2007/07/06/...spond/#more-20

My reply there is pending moderation; I'm sure you can do better! I wrote:

Jul 8th, 2007 at 11:44 am (must be UT)

Seems a ten year trend would be a 50:50 bet, even if the entire data set were used. Small signal in a noisy environment:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/0...5_year_tre.php

The professor seems to be confusing weather and climate. Nobody claims to be able to make ten year weather forecasts, anywhere.

He’s challenging whether any “global climate model” can make pinpoint ten year weather predictions. What part of “global” isn’t understood here?

He’s asking people to focus (for ten years) on only ten instruments, throwing out virtually all the information available, asking to bet only a tiny subset of the available information.

A very small signal will be lost in the annual variability. This is well known in climate history; see note 33 here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm#N_33_

Only with a very large collection of data can a small signal be reliably detected in a noisy environment, as mentioned here for example:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/...large-numbers/

As marketing this is very clever.
8/7/07 8:59 PM James Annan said... Hank,

I've already covered that here.
8/7/07 9:02 PM Wondering Aloud said... Well Steve Milloy still has a mighty fine offer over at Junkscience.com,

I don't understand Richard Lindzen backing down, looks like he made a mistake. Perhaps because of the term significant? 10 yeahs is too short for that, though that never stopped James Hanson.

It looks like he is offering exactly what you want and you don't need to even put up your own money.
17/10/07 1:42 AM AdamW said... More from that esteemed journal, The Sun:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...icle578227.ece

Do you think he's confident enough to bet money?
11/4/08 7:28 PM James Annan said... Let us know how you get on with him :-)
11/4/08 8:46 PM AdamW said... TBH I expect he'd just bluster in a typically tabloid way.

I can only afford to do bets where the money's not upfront - done a couple with mates on trust, though. Somehow I doubt McKenzie would go for one of those, but I've emailed him. I'll post here if I get a response.
11/4/08 10:12 PM Nick Name said... “At this point we can’t say for sure that this is the result of global warming, but I think it is,” says Caldeira. “I would bet that the trend in the jet streams’ positions will continue. It is something I’d put my money on.”

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-cjs041608.php
17/4/08 9:18 AM Nick Name said... dang, where'd _that_ spewdonym come from? some old file from the early Blogger.

c'est moi -- Hank Roberts
17/4/08 9:19 AM Post a Comment
Links to this post:

See links to this post bold claims if i could, i would bet my life savings against the predictions of the current consensus climate model. that is will wilkinson, responding (indirectly) to this. i would recommend that will contact james annan, or perhaps the guys at ...
posted by Daniel Hall @ 7/8/08 6:09 AM The Sea Ice Pool Betting on future climate has become a phenomenon on lately. See here and here, and here. (Those are all blogs I like by the way). In a related vein, there is also a pool for bets on what the minimum arctic sea ice extent will be in ...
posted by andy @ 27/6/08 2:47 AM comment on surface temperatures trends through may: month 89 and ... here’s annan’s betting summary:. http://julesandjames.blogspot......mmary.html.
posted by Boris @ 26/6/08 10:31 PM rx to "contrarian voices" reactions to “contrarian voices”. reaction to “balikbayan villages”. who is barack obama? maestro abbado and ‘resurrection’. dear tony, thank you for this critical article. it seems that only government doest not find this critical. ...
posted by Tony Abaya @ 5/2/08 7:40 PM Green and Armstrong’s scientific forecast There is a new critique of IPCC climate projections doing the rounds of the blogosphere from two 'scientific forecasters', Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong, who claim that since the IPCC projections are not 'scientific forecasts' they ...
posted by gavin @ 21/7/07 8:58 AM global warming blowhards on monday rush limbaugh said:. here's how we could once and for all prove that global warming alarmists are full of bs. we create a betting line on any or all of their dire prognostications. just go get gore's movie, and say, "okay, ...
posted by Robin Hanson @ 28/6/07 7:00 PM Att spela på temperaturförändringar Det har i några år nu gått att spela på temperaturförändringar men konstigt nog är det nästan inga av de som inte tror att den nu pågående uppvärmningen till del är orsakad av människan som vågar sätta pengar på det man påstår sig tro. ...
posted by Magnus @ 15/5/07 1:12 AM New global warming bet for $6-$9 thousand established; question is ... Two years after hopping on the climate change betting bandwagon pioneered by several other people, I've finally got my first bet, which I'd consider the third major agreed-upon bet over the issue. Before the details, I want to mention ...
posted by Brian @ 25/4/07 9:38 AM James Annan on Midas Oracle Two words to introduce Doctor James Annan to the Midas Oracle readers who have just surfaced from an Afghan cave. - James Annan is an eminent British climate scientist, currently working in Japan. - Wikipedians view him as a “notable ...
posted by Chris Masse @ 12/1/07 10:03 PM here we go round the mulberry bush.... ethon** fl... here we go round the mulberry bush.... ethon** flew in hungry from boulder. the guys out there have moved him from his assigned easy, and tasty duties to flying from house to house doing polls on attitudes towards climate change. ...
posted by EliRabett @ 6/1/07 9:59 PM Betting on climate change? The betting on climate change thing seems to have gone rather quiet. This post is prompted by a comment posted to an old entry on my old blog Probably not betting on climate with Lubos Motl (that post is still worth reading, I think, ...
posted by @ 12/7/06 5:29 AM wagering on warming bubba over at noteworthy approvingly quotes an article by richard lindzen disputing that there’s any consensus on global warming. lindzen takes issue with al gore’s movie, an inconvenient truth, and sounds pretty sure that there’s not ...
posted by PotatoStew @ 4/7/06 1:00 PM Speaking of Bill Gray... Mr. Backseatdriving (Brian Schmidt) has a hilarious Wikipedia swipe at Bill Gray here in which Brian updated Gray's Wiki page to reflect certain realities. The Wiki page is here and this is what Brian added: ...
posted by @ 7/6/06 4:24 AM a second comment ontruth and dale abenojar i completely forgot to note that in the global warming (gw) debate, the denialists have demanded balanced or equal reporting of both sides. while in theory this is desirable, they have manipulated it in such a away that when there are ...
posted by livingplanet @ 5/6/06 6:37 AM Bet offers to bloggers denying global warming I've been making offers to bet bloggers who deny global warming, or sound very skeptical of it. The bets I've offered on whether global warming will happen are here. The blogs I've contacted so far (post will be edited over time): ...
posted by Brian @ 27/9/05 11:51 AM i fail again at getting a bet on global warming when i saw that steve from the conservative blog thoughtsonline had bet money against karl rove being indicted, i thought, "who is this guy - i've got to get to him before james annan does!" sure enough, searching his blog turned up a ...
posted by Brian @ 26/7/05 11:08 AM

[Wheell]

Data: Could you summarize? Were the climate change deniers refusing bets offered from scientists?

[losturmarbles]

Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker

Can someone please rationally explain to me the downside of attempting to innovate broad-scale, clean, alternative energy sources?

oil, natural gas, nuclear, coal are broad-scale clean energy sources

nothing wrong with looking at new energy sources, nothing wrong with trying to improve our current ones.

but setting government regulations to force alternative methods be used, or giving irrational government funding to develop them is the downside.

so what is the upside?

[Larry Sinclair]

Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker

As soon as you can show me the data associated with volcanic activity on Jupiter (as well as it is documented on Earth) which indicates no natural phenominon that has caused this shift in climate change on Jupiter, then I will give your case an ounce of credibility. Until then, what are the stakes if you are wrong? If the vast majority of scientists and climatologists are wrong, we create an innovative industry that provides new technology and bolsters our economy by providing new jobs, all while weening ourselves off of foreign oil dependency. Now wouldn't that just be terrible?

I also blame global warming on Mars to Cheney, Exxon, an Bush's illegal wars and hurricanes

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...g_on_mars.html

[ryanXL977]

larry, what do we have to show for the deficit spending and what has conservatism broguth us

[Larry Sinclair]

Originally Posted by Justin7

And this has what to do with Earth?

Oh, I don't know...Maybe that they both have the same source of heat.