Global Cooling Alarmism in the 70s

Zachriel

That’s interesting as the world’s human population was then less than two billion

From MRC Business: "Fire and Ice." "The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.” Meanwhile, do you have anything of substance to say about the pattern of deception that I outlined? Do you deny the inconsistency at every turn?StephenB

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

09:05 AM

9

09

05

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Mark Frank

I had hoped the fact that we were able to point in detail where you were wrong would be evidence that these “alarmists” at least were not “benighted opponents of scientific endeavour” and you might be a little less sure of your beliefs about climate scientists.

Irrelevant. If you want to revisit past errors, all we need to do is point to your error that prompted this very post. We are discussing the historical record of the global cooling and heating deception. Please stay on topic and address the point. If you think the history is substantially different from what I have summarized, have at it.StephenB

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

08:59 AM

8

08

59

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Stephen B: 1895—The Ice Age is coming. “Billions will die.” That's interesting as the world's human population was then less than two billion.Zachriel

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

07:59 AM

7

07

59

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SB This is a real disappointment. We had a civilised, objective, detailed discussion of the facts and now you revert to strap lines and caricatures. I had hoped the fact that we were able to point in detail where you were wrong would be evidence that these "alarmists" at least were not "benighted opponents of scientific endeavour" and you might be a little less sure of your beliefs about climate scientists.Mark Frank

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

06:44 AM

6

06

44

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Mark Frank

Can I once more tie this back to Barry’s previous thread which asserted that sceptics were “sober-minded champions of dispassionate science” while alarmists were “benighted opponents of scientific endeavour”. Do you think he was fair? I am particularly annoyed by Pav’s comment about the “the childish level of scientific rigor that is employed by the alarmists.”

So, you think they are being unfair? Let's think back. This is not the first time around the block: Here’s a quick history of attitudes and comments from some scientists (yes scientists) and journalists: (Dates are approximated) 1895—The Ice Age is coming. “Billions will die.” 1920---The Ice Age is here. The world may be “frozen up again.” 1950---Forget about what we said in 1920, things are heating up—big time. 1975---Forget about what we said in 1950, its’ going to get cold, cold, cold! 1995---Forget about what we said in 1975, it’s going to get hot, hot, hot! 2010---Forget about what we said in 1990. It will get hot, hot, hot and that may cause things to get cold, cold, cold. It’s called “climate change.” If it gets too hot or if it gets too cold, man-made emissions caused it. No matter what happens, we can’t lose. Further, there is nothing to debate. If you disagree, you are anti-science.StephenB

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

06:30 AM

6

06

30

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

No Mark, it is not an "assertion" of mine. It is a prediction from logical necessity, borne out by biology and physics. If the physics won't do it for you... You have "clearly made an error" and it isn't subject to change. Period. cheers...Upright BiPed

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

05:50 AM

5

05

50

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

#119 UB As you know that is a much disputed assertion of yours. I am talking about instances where I have clearly made an error.Mark Frank

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

05:09 AM

5

05

09

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Mark, you are wrong about the representative nature of the spatial arrangement of nucleotides in a codon.Upright BiPed

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

04:50 AM

4

04

50

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Andre We weren't talking about my errors until you raised the subject and accused me of hypocrisy. I responded. Now I am raising the subject of your errors to allow you to refute any implications of hypocrisy.Mark Frank

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

03:57 AM

3

03

57

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Mark We are not talking about me or my errors.Andre

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

03:38 AM

3

03

38

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

#133 Andre

So when will you sorry lot admit it when you’re wrong? You’ve been on numerous occasions and not a blip from your mouths………

How about my first comment on this thread? Having posted here for about 10 years I am sure there are numerous other places I have been proved to be wrong. I hope I have admitted it (it is emotionally a difficult thing to do - hence the hats-off to SB). If I have failed to do this please point them out to me. While you are at it you might want to show us how it is done by linking to places where you have admitted your errors.Mark Frank

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

03:05 AM

3

03

05

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

#133 Andre, I'm ready to admit I'm wrong when I'm shown to be so. I may add that I much prefer being wrong to being not even wrong.Piotr

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

02:53 AM

2

02

53

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky @ 43: It's pretty petty of you to focus on whether or not someone is in *an exact subspecialty* (e.g., climatology). If you have scientific training at all, you will know that many physical scientists, mathematicians, even economists have highly advanced training in mathematical modelling, and skills in mathematical modelling are in principle transferable from one science to another. I know of a statistician whose mathematical modelling talents are respected (and used professionally) by geneticists and all kinds of other scientists. They apparently don't think he is too incompetent to understand the difference between a good model and a lousy model in their various fields of science, even though he has a Ph.D. in none of them. The issue in the global warming debate is how good the models are, and it is not *only* climatologists who are capable of giving input on that. Physicists know a great deal about heating and cooling, for example, and astronomers/astrophysicists may know a great deal about sunspot activity, geologists may know a lot about the relationship of earth, sea, and air interaction, etc. The other point to be made is that you seem to have a double standard. If you are going to say that only climatologists, not physicists, geologists, etc. have any right to comment on global warming models and predictions etc., then you should also be saying that only narrowly *evolutionary biologists* have any right to comment on evolutionary theory, evolutionary mechanisms, etc. But look at who some of the leading commenters in the public debates have been: Larry Moran (biochemist by training, evolutionary biologist apparently only by self-proclamation, since in the last ten years his contributions to evolutionary theory have appeared in blogs rather than in peer-reviewed journals of evolutionary science) Nick Matzke (when he first started public debates on evolution, had as his highest degree an M.A. in Geography -- not evolutionary biology -- but was cited as an expert on the bacterial flagellum by all the Darwinists) Ken Miller (cell biologist, not evolutionary biologist) Francis Collins (geneticist, not evolutionary biologist) Dan Dennett (philosopher, not evolutionary biologist) Rob Pennock (computer programmer and philosopher, not evolutionary biologist) Barbara Forrest (philosopher, not evolutionary biologist) Dennis Venema and Darrel Falk (geneticists, not evolutionary biologists) Elizabeth Liddle (degrees in music performance, architecture, and psychology/neurology, not evolutionary biology) Jeffrey Shallit (degrees in Mathematics, not evolutionary biology) Sam Harris (degrees in Psychology, not evolutionary biology) Weinberg, Krauss, Hawking, Stenger, etc. (degrees in physics/cosmology, not evolutionary biology) Christopher Hitchens (controversial journalist, not scientist at all) Michael Shermer (degrees in religious studies, not evolutionary biology) Alan Fox (degree in biochemistry, not evolutionary biology) Most of your pals at the Skeptical Zone, Panda's Thumb, etc. (few degrees in specifically evolutionary biology, many of them with no biological training at all, mere pop-science geeks who spend a lot of time on the internet) So what is the rule here? That no one is allowed to comment on any scientific subject, even if they have a very high level of training in a related subject, unless they are in the subspecialty that allegedly has monopoly expertise in that subject? Or is the rule to be that anyone who can demonstrate knowledge regarding the issues at stake -- no matter what their degree or formal training was in -- has a right to be at the discussion table? If it's the former, then I want to see some posts by Seversky telling Liz Liddle, Larry Moran, Ken Miller, etc. to shut up about evolutionary theory because they aren't competent to argue about it. If it's the latter, then I want to see petty arguments that "he's not a climatologist, so he can't know anything about global warming" abandoned. Are you capable of intellectual consistency here, Seversky? Or only of partisanship?Timaeus

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

02:49 AM

2

02

49

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Piotr & Mark Frank... So when will you sorry lot admit it when you're wrong? You've been on numerous occasions and not a blip from your mouths......... You're not on some higher moral plain, in fact your hypocrisy shows what you really are.....Andre

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

02:42 AM

2

02

42

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB, I add my congratulations to Mark's; I mean it. Mark Frank @111: My sentiments, exactly.Piotr

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

01:52 AM

1

01

52

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SB I congratulate you on twice admitting errors in this debate - "only 1% of scientists believe in global warming" and "the earth has cooled 1.08 degrees since 1998". I know this is not easy. Can I once more tie this back to Barry's previous thread which asserted that sceptics were “sober-minded champions of dispassionate science” while alarmists were “benighted opponents of scientific endeavour”. Do you think he was fair? I am particularly annoyed by Pav's comment about the "the childish level of scientific rigor that is employed by the alarmists."Mark Frank

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

10:50 PM

10

10

50

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

We needn't jack this thread to have this conversation. Nothing will come of it anyway. -cheersUpright BiPed

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

08:18 PM

8

08

18

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Radio at 107

Uprights argument is based on the assumption that the genetic translation system is irreducible

This is not true. The core of my argument is not about irreducibility, but about the necessary function of the system. Even so, I do not assume that genetic translation is irreducible. The notion that translation is irreducible to a representation and interpretant was a prediction of logical necessity, and as it turns out, our universal observation of the natural world has borne this out to be true - without exception. People who question this generally seem to do so without addressing the physics involved. Typically the first thing to go is translation itself.Upright BiPed

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

08:13 PM

8

08

13

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Radio at 103,

Why do you continually use the phrase “dynamic properties?”

Firstly, I do not believe that I "continually use the phrase". I think if you did a search of my name and that phrase together you'd not get much in return. Even so, I think it is a fitting term to use. It is a term that I have found in use among accomplished physicists and others who concern themselves with the physical issues surround the epistemic cut between energy/rate/time-dependent chemical reactions and energy/rate/time-independent controls. ”This is as far as von Neumann’s logic takes us. The main point of his logic is that open-ended evolution requires more than a complex time-dependent dynamics and complex chemical reactions. There must be a time-independent passive memory that by means of a coded description controls the dynamical rates of specific constructions or chemical syntheses … The physical conditions necessary for memory storage are relatively simple to state as contrasted to the conditions for writing and reading of memory. The first condition is that there exist many inherently equiprobable constraint structures with adequate stability. Equiprobable means that the structures are energy degenerate or the energy of each state is the same. These states need not be exactly the same energy as long as the energy differences do not significantly affect the setting of the state by writing or the communication of the state by reading.” – Physicists, HH Pattee

Wouldn’t “chemical properties” be a better fit in the three examples you used?

You can think of it in “chemical properties” if you wish. I think the chasing around of words is mostly a waste of time beyond a certain point. In my experience, it is often the low-hanging fruit for those who want to ignore the core issues. People can question words to no end, and after all, who can be against “clarity”. It’s an effective diversion.Upright BiPed

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

07:50 PM

7

07

50

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The phrase "chemical properties," I think, would be a much better description. Water boiling, iron and oxygen interacting, and the series of interactions that lead to genetic translation are controlled by the chemical properties of the molecules involved. Uprights argument is based on the assumption that the genetic translation system is irreducible: that a much simpler system can't carry out protein synthesis in a much less controlled, albeit biologically relevant, way.Radioaction

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

07:27 PM

7

07

27

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Radioaction: Upright, apparently you have fans. LoL! Radioaction: Why do you continually use the phrase “dynamic properties?” Because the properties are dynamic, not static. Was that really so difficult? Radioaction: Wouldn’t “chemical properties” be a better fit in the three examples you used? Why? Are they static, as opposed to dynamic?Mung

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

06:27 PM

6

06

27

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB:

Still, there are a number of scientists who hold that there has been some cooling since 1998. In addition to Lovejoy, we also have Judith Curry, chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.

Neither of the two says what you ascribe to them. As I mentioned above, Lovejoy's number for the temperature difference between 1998 and 2013 is −0.01 K. The figure you ascribe to him, −0.37 K, is not the cooling but the natural contribution offsetting the expected anthropogenic warming of +0.36 K. Curry argues that we are in a pause, not in a cooling phase. Here is her definition of a pause:

Further, addressing these questions requires an unambiguous definition of ‘warming’, ‘stopped’, and ‘paused’. ‘Warming’ means a rate of change of temperature that is greater than zero. Here I define “stopped” to mean a rate of change of temperature that is less than or equal to zero. Here I define “pause” to mean a rate of increase of temperature that is less than 0.17 – 0.2 C/decade.

So a pause, per Curry, is a slight warming, not cooling, trend!skram

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

05:58 PM

5

05

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Piotr

OK, if you took the number from Mr Worthington, you didn’t make it up. He did...

It appears that someone did. I checked the RSS website and found nothing there to support Worthington's claim. So the case is closed on that one. I was wrong about that number. Still, there are a number of scientists who hold that there has been some cooling since 1998. In addition to Lovejoy, we also have Judith Curry, chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. “Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.” Interestingly, a great many people are discussing this "pause," which is based on the proposition that global warming stopped just before at at the turn of the century and that a cooling trend will follow. I won't give the names of all the scientists who hold that position since it would take up too much space.StephenB

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

05:19 PM

5

05

19

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Upright, apparently you have fans. But I’ll humor you and play along for now. Why do you continually use the phrase “dynamic properties?” Wouldn’t “chemical properties” be a better fit in the three examples you used? And doing this, in the third example, I think I would disagree with you. The chemical properties of nucleotides and amino acids control genetic translation. Yes this is a very specific series of interactions between molecules that are well suited to the job, but no one claims this system appeared out of nowhere.Radioaction

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

03:03 PM

3

03

03

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I wrote: (see the caption of the graph paraded by your “layman”) Oops, my mistake -- he doesn't even link to the graph, he only mentions it. But it's in all likelihood this one, judging from the description: http://heartland.org/issues/environment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/06/satellites-show-no-global-warming-for-17-years-5-months/Piotr

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

02:48 PM

2

02

48

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SB

I didn’t just make up the number 1.08, no matter how often Piotr and others falsely accuse me of it. As I said, I picked it up from more than one source. I noticed a chart from “Remote Sensing Systems” that provides information to NASA. Several writers have alluded to it, showing the appropriate graphs.

I am sure you didn’t make it up. I expect you got it from sceptical blogs and such like.  Of course without references I cannot be sure what they are referring to but as I said back in #87:

1998 was a freak year and if you take that as your base, take the very lowest of the subsequent years (2007 I think), and look only at the RSS satellite measurements (which measure the upper atmosphere) then you can find this difference.

(This is in Celsius incidentally not Fahrenheit. Where did your comment “You forgot to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit.” come from? You really don’t seem to be too familiar with the material you are quoting.) Such a move is obviously not a reasonable way to measure a trend and does not refer to a drop between 1998 and now – but sounds good. It is easy to check. Just look at the  global temperature record. It is easy to see that the only way you can get a difference of over a degree is by using the green (RSS) line and taking the peak of 1998 and the trough just before 2010. (It is also marked in Centigrade).

Here is just one example from a layman who writes for the Pensacola Journal: “NASA’s data proves there has been “no” atmospheric or oceanic global warming for the last 18 years. And that the earth warmed only 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit over the 35 years since NASA started measuring the data in 1979. The bulk of that warming occurred between 1979 and 1998, with temperatures actually dropping ever since. In fact, data from NASA’s and NOAA’s “Remote Sensing Systems Chart” show the world is 1.08 degrees cooler than in 1998. Additionally, the world’s oceans have been cooling for the last 11 years. More than 200 SSRC scientific researchers have validated the earth has entered a 30-year cooling cycle caused by solar hibernation with potentially catastrophic cold.”

As you say he is a layman. He seems to be falling for exactly what I described above. In addition there are some even more straightforward errors. It is not true that temperatures have been dropping ever since or that the world’s oceans have been cooling for the last 11 years.  I have no idea where he got the last sentence from but given the other sentences I very much doubt it is true. But please – there is a limit to how many sceptical quotes I am prepared to debunk. It takes too long and gets boring. I think the point is made. The 1.08 cooling figure is complete rubbish (I would have used a different word but KF might be looking).Mark Frank

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

02:40 PM

2

02

40

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB, A layman writing for a newspaper (and not bothering to provide a reference for the 1.08 figure) is not a credible source of scientific information. Some of the diagrams circulated on the Internet to show "global cooling" can be traced back to sources such as Christopher Monckton (see the caption of the graph paraded by your "layman"). Now, Monckton may be various things: he is the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley; a former High Sheriff of Kent; he is a Knight of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta; a UKIP activist, etc. But he is not a climatologist. In his youth he studied Classics and journalism, and being a hereditary peer doesn't make him a universal guru. When he takes arms against a professional, the outcome looks like this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jul/14/monckton-john-abraham OK, if you took the number from Mr Worthington, you didn't make it up. He did, and you only accepted the figure uncritically, without thinking for yourself. Nevertheless, you are in a hole, so you'd better stop digging.Piotr

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

02:06 PM

2

02

06

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB, Lovejoy doesn't claim that the world has cooled down by 0.37 K. If you look at Table I in his paper you will see that the net temperature change was −0.01 K. He says that the expected change from anthropogenic warming is +0.36 K and thus attributes the difference of −0.37 K to natural cooling. So −0.37 K is not the observed cooling since 1998. That would be −0.01 K.skram

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

01:33 PM

1

01

33

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Mark Frank

0.37 C is 0.67 F – still way short of 1.08. When you quoted the 1.08 you never gave indication it was Fahrenheit (which would have been rather bizarre in a scientific context).

I didn't just make up the number 1.08, no matter how often Piotr and others falsely accuse me of it. As I said, I picked it up from more than one source. I noticed a chart from "Remote Sensing Systems" that provides information to NASA. Several writers have alluded to it, showing the appropriate graphs. Here is just one example from a layman who writes for the Pensacola Journal: "NASA's data proves there has been "no" atmospheric or oceanic global warming for the last 18 years. And that the earth warmed only 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit over the 35 years since NASA started measuring the data in 1979. The bulk of that warming occurred between 1979 and 1998, with temperatures actually dropping ever since. In fact, data from NASA's and NOAA's "Remote Sensing Systems Chart" show the world is 1.08 degrees cooler than in 1998. Additionally, the world's oceans have been cooling for the last 11 years. More than 200 SSRC scientific researchers have validated the earth has entered a 30-year cooling cycle caused by solar hibernation with potentially catastrophic cold." — Kenny Worthington

However, I did actually consider whether you might have been using Fahrenheit for some reason but when I saw that Fahrenheit also was miles away from 1.08 I decided that couldn’t be what you meant. I know you are honest enough to retract your statement.

I won't retract as long as I have credible information that I am right. Will you retract?StephenB

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

01:04 PM

1

01

04

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

This fragment is also worth quoting (emphasis added):

The reality of the climate system is that, due to natural climate variability, it is entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of "cooling" superimposed on the longer-term warming trend due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing. Climate scientists pay little attention to these short-term fluctuations as the short term "cooling trends" mentioned above are statistically insignificant and fitting trends to such short periods is not very meaningful in the context of long-term climate change. On the other hand, segments of the general public do pay attention to these fluctuations and some critics cite the most recent period as evidence against anthropogenic-forced climate change.

Full text here (Easterling & Wehner 2009).Piotr

January 25, 2015

January

01

Jan

25

25

2015

11:14 AM

11

11

14

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link