Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.


PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

Aug 14, 2014 at 7:55 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A
I recommend that you visit Steven Goddard's Real Science and read his regular links to items such as this. You may want to ignore some of the American Political comments he posts; but there is a lot there to interest an observer of the Climate Blame Culture at work, today we're mostly blaming CO2 for whatever is happening..

Aug 15, 2014 at 7:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Amazing the certainty with which they describe climatic phenomenon when they obviously knew practically nothing about it (satellite measurements had only been going a handful of years).

Just shows you that the journalistic tendency to eradicate uncertainty in science is not a new phenomenon.

Aug 15, 2014 at 9:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

BigYin
At least they appear to have been basing their conclusions on observations rather than models.
This is one more piece in the global cooling jigsaw that all the green fanatics and pseudo-scientists keep trying to tell us never happened. Fortunately the last cooling period came to an end round about the time this stuff was being published and I am (fairly) optimistic that technological advances since then would mitigate some of the worst effects on food production when the next downturn starts, if it hasn't already.
That assumes of course that the eco-luddites don't get it all their own way as far as GM crops are concerned. If we're all obliged to go back to hand ploughing and spelt then I fear we are in big trouble whatever the weather.

Aug 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

I would no more jump on this than I have been willing to accept glib explanations from the other side. Who is actually able to describe all the mechanisms and interactions? Nobody, that's who.

Aug 15, 2014 at 12:45 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

One of the interesting features of the GW debate is that history is now being re-written, Orwell-style. The 1970s ice-age scare that some of us remember well is being expunged. For example, it has been claimed that the Newsweek 'Cooling World' article that Martin quotes above, was - completely meaninglessly - "retracted". Though I have not found an official statement from Newsweek saying this.

there were lots of similar articles in the UK, most amusingly from the Guardian. Some of them are discussed at Geoff's blog.

Here is a scan of the original "Cooling world" article. Note the sharp cooling in the graph between 1940 and 1970, which seems to have been disappeared in more recent graphs.

Aug 15, 2014 at 2:43 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Paul:

One of the interesting features of the GW debate is that history is now being re-written, Orwell-style.

'greed. And one of the interesting features of the GW debate is how important getting the history right is. A few of us had a bit of a barny about that in March. That began, for me, with both TBYJ and Chandra giving a lopsided view (at best) which I tried to correct (for example here). We had a number of people weigh in by the end of the latter thread, ably chaired by geronimo. It's not just the mainstream climate re-educators struggling with the history, in other words, it's all of us. Darwall's made a seminal contribution - never realised before how close that was to Orwell! - but we're all responsible to try and do justice to this remarkable story. Future generations might even learn a thing or two if we do.

Aug 15, 2014 at 3:03 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Oh give it a rest Richard. Your OCD about he said she said is infecting every thread.

Aug 15, 2014 at 3:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

.... Who is actually able to describe all the mechanisms and interactions? Nobody, that's who.
Aug 15, 2014 at 12:45 PM | Unregistered Commenter rhoda


rhoda, did you see SoD's attempt to respond to my recollection of your "show me the best evidence" question on your That CO2 thing again.. thread

Aug 15, 2014 at 3:47 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

TBYJ: Sorry to break it to you but history is all about "he said she said". If you wish to be constructive, quote something I said and try to show it's wrong. That's nothing to with OCD, it's something called civilised argument. And any number of your potty-mouthed sockpuppets joining to agree with you isn't going to wash. It's all wearing very thin.

Aug 15, 2014 at 3:56 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Welcome to the It's All About Richard Show.

Aug 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Martin, I did, and thanks to SoD for engaging. But that thread has gone meta, no hope of getting back to the crux, and various folks wondering why we should. I say try to answer the questions or shut up. Don't worry about who people are or whether it is OK to discuss the subject.

Aug 15, 2014 at 4:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

Rhoda: I couldn't disagree more. You have the opportunity to ask SoD your questions. I'm very surprised that you haven't already done so. He's clearly up for the discussion. He won't be diverted by other stuff and nor should you.

Aug 15, 2014 at 4:33 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

It's trolling. Sidetracking threads with stuff of no interest to anyone except the troll.

Aug 15, 2014 at 6:15 PM | Unregistered Commentersplitpin

"Martin, I did, and thanks to SoD for engaging. But that thread has gone meta, no hope of getting back to the crux, and various folks wondering why we should. I say try to answer the questions or shut up. Don't worry about who people are or whether it is OK to discuss the subject.

Aug 15, 2014 at 4:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda">>>

Rhoda,

It was not you who raised the subject of your thread so I think it's fair for you to comment here.

You asked for some evidence, ie proof, that CO2 caused the atmosphere to warm up.

All you got, as usual, were numerous theory based opinion pieces about what CO2 is theorized to do. It doesn't matter how pretentious were the the pseudonyms chosen by the various contributors, in an effort to assume an air of scientific authority, in the end all they could offer was opinion, with no evidence to prove the hypothesis underpinning the AGW argument. Which was, of course, the subject of your thread.

You touch on something that I have grown concerned about for some time now. Namely that the BH thread comments seem to have been hijacked by climate wars tin soldiers, who seem to think that some lines of discussion are not politically correct and undermine their imagined war against AGW zealots.

The general public doesn't give a hoot about the details of climate theory. They simply need to be frequently reminded about the enormous cost of subsidies they must pay because of the 'climate change' agenda, and shown the facts that temperatures only rose for just 22 years in the latter part of the last century, and have remained static for the past 18 years while, thanks to China etc, CO2 levels have continued to increase no matter how many expensive windmills we erect. Add to that the facts that polar ice is increasing, and the polar bears are doing just fine, and I think our self appointed climate warriors should have a pretty good set of weapons in their war.

The GWPF is a blog dedicated to anti CAGW arguments aimed at the general public. I always thought that BH was a general purpose talking shop without censorship of the threads. If some people believe freedom of expression on the BH threads undermines their political message, I suggest perhaps they should start up blogs of their own.

I also left this comment at the bottom of Rhoda's thread.

Aug 18, 2014 at 1:58 AM | Registered CommenterRKS