... and libtards will go back to the "next Ice Age" bullshit we were all fed in the 70s.
Pick a fucking lane, Danica.
I believe in God, by the way. President of my church council, as a matter of fact.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out who is drinking kool-aid here vis-a-vis your "Ice Age warning in the 70s" talking point.
Climate modeling takes monstrous amounts of computing power. Your computer alone probably has more computing power than existed on the planet in 1970. Not to mention the fact that weather satellites and other technologies that create the data for models were nothing like they are now. So it is no surprise that none of the organizations of professional climatologists were making any definite predictions in the early 1970s. In fact the National Academy of Science position in 1975 was still in its speculative stage. Quotes from their report at the time:
Introductory quote:
"Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know".
Another introductory quote about the conclusion of the NAS in the article abstract:
"...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...".
On the creation of models and simulations:
"The attack on this problem is in its infancy. ... Efforts to assemble such models [Coupled GCMs [WMC]] are just getting under way...".
The possible effects of CO2:
"Again, however, it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitave assessment of the cliatic impacts."
On possible Ice Age:
"The question remains unresolved. If the end of the interglacial is episodic in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of unknown timing, although as each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5% greater chance of encountering its onset If, on the other hand, these changes are more sinusiondal in character, then the climate should decline gradually over a period of thousands of years. .... These climatic projections, however, could be replaced by quite different future climatic scenarios due to man's inadvertent interference with the otherwise natural variation...
The interglacial period is now thought to be much longer than 10,000 years.
Remember, the above quotes represented the uncertain science that existed in the 70s. No professional science organization was producing anything more definite than this in those days.
Now let's look at the NAS's
current position:
"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."
The
one study by Rasool and Schneider, that was sensationally quoted in the 70s was one regarding the effects of aerosol particles (mostly from burning coal) on the average annual temperature. It predicted annual drops in temperature due to the increase in aerosol levels. It turns out the article was right about the aerosols, but underestimated the influence of CO2 by a large factor. But more importantly, aerosol levels started to drop by the 80s as we put more pollution controls on coal burning plants.
What was happening was the typical tendency for the popular press to sensationalize science to the point where their reporting becomes irresponsible and inaccurate. For example, the James Schlesinger's irresponsible quote mining in his
Washington Post article is typical of this kind of stunt. Schlesinger quotes from the Rasool and Schnieder article as:
"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age."
But if you look at the actual article you find:
"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path.
For instance, widespread deforestation in recent centuries, especially in Europe and North America, together with increased atmospheric opacity due to man-made dust storms and industrial wastes, should have increased the Earth’s reflectivity. At the same time increasing concentration of industrial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface.
When these human factors are added to such other natural factors as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and resonances within the hydro-atmosphere, their effect can only be estimated in terms of direction, not of amount"
In the final analysis,
here is a graph of the number of scientific papers published between 1965 and 1980 on the subject of warming or cooling. Keep in mind that the papers on cooling were looking at aerosol effects and mentioned the counter effects of CO2, and the warming papers were concentrating on CO2.
If you add up all the citations for the various papers, the spread between the cooling papers and the warming papers is a few orders of magnitude more than the number of papers alone.
So yes, there was an Ice Age scare but it was the popular press's scare, not the scientific community's scare. These days the press articles are being used irresponsibly in the same manner that faceking is using them. The goal is to undermine the integrity of scientific work in this field in the eye of the public so as to directly affect public policy regardless of the actual science.
