• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Reality of the 1970's Global Cooling Consensus

"The Discovery of Global Warming" - Professor Spencer Weart.
9780674031890.jpg

The Discovery of Global Warming -Spencer R. Weart | Harvard University Press (an expanded online copy is available on the American Institute of Physics website.)
https://history.aip.org/climate/impacts.htm
https://history.aip.org/climate/author.htm


"A landmark study on "Man's Impact on the Global Environment," conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970, suggested that greenhouse warming might bring "widespread droughts, changes of the ocean level, and so forth," but could not get beyond such vague worries.(5) A meeting in Stockholm the following year came to similar conclusions, and added that we might pass a point of no return if the Arctic Ocean's ice cover disappeared. That would change the world's weather in ways that the scientists could not guess at, but that they thought might be serious. Their main point in bringing up the Arctic ice, however, was simply to illustrate "the sensitivity of a complex and perhaps unstable system that man might significantly alter."(6)

Up to this point, scientists expected that greenhouse warming, if it happened at all, would bring no serious impacts until well into the 21st century. And the 21st century seemed so far away! But was climate change really so distant? In the early 1970's the world saw vivid illustrations of climate fluctuations as savage droughts afflicted the American Midwest, devastated the Russian wheat crop and brought starvation upon millions in Africa. Studies of climate were still in their infancy, and scientists were debating whether the greenhouse effect from CO2 emissions might be overwhelmed by the cooling caused by other forms of pollution. A few scientists speculated that industrial emissions of aerosols might cause severe cooling, while others suspected that natural cycles might bring a new ice age within the next few centuries. Nobody knew whether warming or cooling was more likely.

Studies of the impacts of climate change therefore tended to address generalities such as how a given type of crop would respond to either a rise or a drop in temperature. An example was a 1974 report commissioned by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). What if the climate altered radically within a few decades — perhaps the sudden freeze that some journalists warned might grip the planet? The report concluded that the entire world's food supply might be imperilled. There would be mass migrations, perhaps even wars as starving nations fought for the remaining resources. Scientists scoffed at the scenario, for none of them expected a radical climate shift, whether warming or cooling, could come so swiftly."
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
A 1965 a report by the US President's Science Advisory Committee summarized the risks implied by and limitations to contemporary understanding of CO2 emissions:
The possibility of climatic change resulting from changes in the quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide was proposed independently by the American geologist, T. C. Chamberlain (1899) and the Swedish chemist, S. Arrhenius (1903), at the beginning of this century. Since their time, many scientists have dealt with one or another aspect of this question, but until very recently there was little quantitative information about what has actually happened. Even today, we cannot make a useful prediction concerning the magnitude or nature of the possible climatic effects. But we are able to say a good deal more than formerly. . . .


One of the most recent discussions of these effects is given by Moller (1963). He consisders the radiation balance at the earth's surface with an average initial temperature of 15°C (59°F), a relative humidity of 75 percent, and 50% cloudiness. We may compute from his data that with a 25 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, the average temperature near the earth's surface could increase between 0.6°C and 4°C (1.1°F to 7°F), depending on the behaviour of atmospheric water vapour content. . . . A doubling of CO2 in the air, which would happen if a little more than half the reserves of fossil fuels were consumed, would have about three times the effect of a twenty-five percent increase.

As Moller himself emphasized, he was unable to take into account.... In consequence, Moller's computations probably over-estimate the effects on atmospheric temperature of a CO2 increase.​
 
The Charney report had the range at 1.5 to 4.5 C, with the +- error range applied 3C

Yes, anyone can read the report, that's why I provided it. You missed the point entirely. It was published in the 1970's
 
"The Discovery of Global Warming" - Professor Spencer Weart.
View attachment 67244876

The Discovery of Global Warming -Spencer R. Weart | Harvard University Press (an expanded online copy is available on the American Institute of Physics website.)
https://history.aip.org/climate/impacts.htm
https://history.aip.org/climate/author.htm


"A landmark study on "Man's Impact on the Global Environment," conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970, suggested that greenhouse warming might bring "widespread droughts, changes of the ocean level, and so forth," but could not get beyond such vague worries.(5) A meeting in Stockholm the following year came to similar conclusions, and added that we might pass a point of no return if the Arctic Ocean's ice cover disappeared. That would change the world's weather in ways that the scientists could not guess at, but that they thought might be serious. Their main point in bringing up the Arctic ice, however, was simply to illustrate "the sensitivity of a complex and perhaps unstable system that man might significantly alter."(6)

Up to this point, scientists expected that greenhouse warming, if it happened at all, would bring no serious impacts until well into the 21st century. And the 21st century seemed so far away! But was climate change really so distant? In the early 1970's the world saw vivid illustrations of climate fluctuations as savage droughts afflicted the American Midwest, devastated the Russian wheat crop and brought starvation upon millions in Africa. Studies of climate were still in their infancy, and scientists were debating whether the greenhouse effect from CO2 emissions might be overwhelmed by the cooling caused by other forms of pollution. A few scientists speculated that industrial emissions of aerosols might cause severe cooling, while others suspected that natural cycles might bring a new ice age within the next few centuries. Nobody knew whether warming or cooling was more likely.

Studies of the impacts of climate change therefore tended to address generalities such as how a given type of crop would respond to either a rise or a drop in temperature. An example was a 1974 report commissioned by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). What if the climate altered radically within a few decades — perhaps the sudden freeze that some journalists warned might grip the planet? The report concluded that the entire world's food supply might be imperilled. There would be mass migrations, perhaps even wars as starving nations fought for the remaining resources. Scientists scoffed at the scenario, for none of them expected a radical climate shift, whether warming or cooling, could come so swiftly."

I own the Weart book (revised and expanded 2008 edition). Makes the case as well as it can be made.
 
I own the Weart book (revised and expanded 2008 edition). Makes the case as well as it can be made.

So then you should already know there was no 'consensus' about 'imminent global cooling' in the 1970's.
 
So then you should already know there was no 'consensus' about 'imminent global cooling' in the 1970's.

No. I said it makes the case as well as it can be made. I did not say it was either persuasive or comprehensive. It is in fact a polemic disguised as history.
 
No. I said it makes the case as well as it can be made. I did not say it was either persuasive or comprehensive. It is in fact a polemic disguised as history.

It's not making any 'case'. So it looks like you didn't actually READ the book.

It's okay Jack we all know you prefer to swallow whatever nonsense is posted on pseudoscience conspiracy blogs run by people with no background/qualifications in science and with posts written by people like massage therapists.
 
Last edited:
It's not making any 'case'. So it looks like you didn't actually READ the book.

It's okay Jack we all know you prefer to swallow whatever nonsense is posted on pseudoscience conspiracy blogs run by people with no background/qualifications in science and with posts written by people like massage therapists.

P. 203: "It is nearly certain global warming is upon us."
P. 204: "Nearly everyone in the world will need to adjust."

So yes, he's making a case.
 
P. 203: "It is nearly certain global warming is upon us."
P. 204: "Nearly everyone in the world will need to adjust."

So yes, he's making a case.

Uh... that's factual. (to anyone except crackpots and climate truthers).

It's not the 1970's anymore
 
Uh... that's factual. It's not the 1970's anymore.

And that's the point. He's making a case with which you happen to agree. That's why you think it's factual. It's actually just a climate version of the Whig interpretation of history, in which the past is interpreted to point to an inevitable present.
 
And that's the point. He's making a case with which you happen to agree. That's why you think it's factual. It's actually just a climate version of the Whig interpretation of history, in which the past is interpreted to point to an inevitable present.
Jack in your la la land of pretending your pet GCR hypothesis is going to overturn science despite the laws of physics and a massive amount evidence to the contrary, no doubt you believe several impossible things before breakfast every day.
 
Jack in your la la land of pretending your pet GCR hypothesis is going to overturn science despite the laws of physics and a massive amount evidence to the contrary, no doubt you believe several impossible things before breakfast every day.

It's not about me. It's about Weart. As Bob Seger sang: ". . . . what to leave in, what to leave out."
 
A 1965 a report by the US President's Science Advisory Committee summarized the risks implied by and limitations to contemporary understanding of CO2 emissions:
The possibility of climatic change resulting from changes in the quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide was proposed independently by the American geologist, T. C. Chamberlain (1899) and the Swedish chemist, S. Arrhenius (1903), at the beginning of this century. Since their time, many scientists have dealt with one or another aspect of this question, but until very recently there was little quantitative information about what has actually happened. Even today, we cannot make a useful prediction concerning the magnitude or nature of the possible climatic effects. But we are able to say a good deal more than formerly. . . .


One of the most recent discussions of these effects is given by Moller (1963). He consisders the radiation balance at the earth's surface with an average initial temperature of 15°C (59°F), a relative humidity of 75 percent, and 50% cloudiness. We may compute from his data that with a 25 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, the average temperature near the earth's surface could increase between 0.6°C and 4°C (1.1°F to 7°F), depending on the behaviour of atmospheric water vapour content. . . . A doubling of CO2 in the air, which would happen if a little more than half the reserves of fossil fuels were consumed, would have about three times the effect of a twenty-five percent increase.

As Moller himself emphasized, he was unable to take into account.... In consequence, Moller's computations probably over-estimate the effects on atmospheric temperature of a CO2 increase.​

Have a link that works?
 
LOL... It gives an estimated melting of the Antarctic sheet ice of 4,000 years, if the energy melting the ice were increased by 10%, and no added precipitation.

page 123
 
page 124 talks of the benefits from greater photosynthesis.
 
The report covers CO2 from page 112 to 131. It's actually a very good report, and appears to be neutral. I see no bias in it's reporting.
 
Something else significant. Though the report caims a probable overestimate for the 25% increase of 0.6 to 4C at the surface, it also gives a probable 4C cooling in the stratosphere, just above the tropopause. This could easily balance out to near zero as the atmosphere mixes.
 
I like reading the old school science material. They didn't allow deception and bias like is common today.
 
I like reading the old school science material. They didn't allow deception and bias like is common today.

Alternatively, as knowledge has advanced and uncertainties have decreased, the conclusions which have been increasingly cemented are ones which your ideology forces you to reject as deceptive and biased.


Something else significant. Though the report caims a probable overestimate for the 25% increase of 0.6 to 4C at the surface, it also gives a probable 4C cooling in the stratosphere, just above the tropopause. This could easily balance out to near zero as the atmosphere mixes.

Sure, because after the past four billion years, the stratosphere and troposphere are bound to reach a uniform equilibrium in the next few decades :roll: Observations have confirmed the warming troposphere/cooling stratosphere, one of the distinctive indications of a predominant role of GHGs in the current warming. If the major variable were solar activity for example, we'd expect it to warm the stratosphere as well as the troposphere; instead, what we see is 'something' apparently retaining energy lower in the atmosphere. As long as that 'something' continues to contain energy in the lower atmosphere, your notion that they should automatically 'balance out' is nothing more than wishful thinking.

But good on you for being sometimes able to recognize when others are not driven by bias ;)

RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.png


RSS_TS_channel_TLS_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png
 
Alternatively, as knowledge has advanced and uncertainties have decreased, the conclusions which have been increasingly cemented are ones which your ideology forces you to reject as deceptive and biased.




Sure, because after the past four billion years, the stratosphere and troposphere are bound to reach a uniform equilibrium in the next few decades :roll: Observations have confirmed the warming troposphere/cooling stratosphere, one of the distinctive indications of a predominant role of GHGs in the current warming. If the major variable were solar activity for example, we'd expect it to warm the stratosphere as well as the troposphere; instead, what we see is 'something' apparently retaining energy lower in the atmosphere. As long as that 'something' continues to contain energy in the lower atmosphere, your notion that they should automatically 'balance out' is nothing more than wishful thinking.

But good on you for being sometimes able to recognize when others are not driven by bias ;)

RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.png


RSS_TS_channel_TLS_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png

Measured values still suffer from not being able to fully quantify individual variables. I have still not seen any good studies on the heat island effect affecting meteorological stations, real and urban evaporation cooling chances, or quantifying the solar effects of the oceans. Any help you could give here would be appreciated.
 
A 1965 a report by the US President's Science Advisory Committee summarized the risks implied by and limitations to contemporary understanding of CO2 emissions:
The possibility of climatic change resulting from changes in the quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide was proposed independently by the American geologist, T. C. Chamberlain (1899) and the Swedish chemist, S. Arrhenius (1903), at the beginning of this century. Since their time, many scientists have dealt with one or another aspect of this question, but until very recently there was little quantitative information about what has actually happened. Even today, we cannot make a useful prediction concerning the magnitude or nature of the possible climatic effects. But we are able to say a good deal more than formerly. . . .


One of the most recent discussions of these effects is given by Moller (1963). He consisders the radiation balance at the earth's surface with an average initial temperature of 15°C (59°F), a relative humidity of 75 percent, and 50% cloudiness. We may compute from his data that with a 25 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, the average temperature near the earth's surface could increase between 0.6°C and 4°C (1.1°F to 7°F), depending on the behaviour of atmospheric water vapour content. . . . A doubling of CO2 in the air, which would happen if a little more than half the reserves of fossil fuels were consumed, would have about three times the effect of a twenty-five percent increase.

As Moller himself emphasized, he was unable to take into account.... In consequence, Moller's computations probably over-estimate the effects on atmospheric temperature of a CO2 increase.​

Here is the abstract from Moller et al 1963,
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JZ068i013p03877
Overlapping of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O in the range around 15 μ essentially diminishes the temperature changes.
New calculations give ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm.
We do not have to compute what he says the warming will be, he says it in his abstract, ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm.
Also since the 1990's the amount of forcing warming from 2XCO2 has decreased as the energy calculated energy imbalance decreased.
The real down side to the idea of simply calculating what will happen to the 15 u photons, is that CO2 only can absorb those photons for a
fraction of a duty cycle. the average atmospheric CO2 molecule spends over 99.9% of it's time in an excited state, and cannot absorb any 15 um photons.
The second thing is that the warming calculation is based on CO2 increasing downward long‐wave radiation, but at atmospheric pressures
below 10 km, most energy is lost through local collisions, not emission.
 
Here is the abstract from Moller et al 1963,
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JZ068i013p03877

We do not have to compute what he says the warming will be, he says it in his abstract, ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm.
Also since the 1990's the amount of forcing warming from 2XCO2 has decreased as the energy calculated energy imbalance decreased.
The real down side to the idea of simply calculating what will happen to the 15 u photons, is that CO2 only can absorb those photons for a
fraction of a duty cycle. the average atmospheric CO2 molecule spends over 99.9% of it's time in an excited state, and cannot absorb any 15 um photons.
The second thing is that the warming calculation is based on CO2 increasing downward long‐wave radiation, but at atmospheric pressures
below 10 km, most energy is lost through local collisions, not emission.

This is simply wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom