All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Oct. 6, 2015 - Skeptoid
16:56
Skeptoid #487: About That 1970s Global Cooling...

No, climatologists in the 1970s did not believe we're headed into another ice age. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Debunking the 1970s Cooling Myth 00:08:36
One of the most tired and frustrating arguments put forth by those who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change is that scientists used to say in the 1970s that the planet was cooling, not warming.
And if they were so wrong then, then they can't be trusted now.
Of course, this is not true.
Scientists in the 1970s were well aware the Earth was warming.
It was the mass media who said the opposite.
The truth behind 1970s global cooling is coming up today on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and we'll replace them with more Skeptoid.
The extended premium show available now.
Come to skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
About that 1970s global cooling.
Today, most climate scientists tell us the Earth is warming.
Some people deny that and point out that in the 1970s, climate scientists said the Earth was cooling, perhaps headed into another ice age.
Today's scientists counter that it wasn't climate scientists who said that, it was the media.
The deniers counter that that's just a dodge, that it was in fact the scientific consensus in the 1970s.
If the scientific consensus then was so wrong, how can a scientific consensus today be any more reliable?
One side says, nyen yen yen, and the other counters with, I know you are, but what am I?
Only to be told, you and what are me?
And are then shut down with a great big, today we're going to slide on our corduroy bell bottoms and go back to the 1970s to see who said the Earth was cooling and how many real scientists agreed with it.
Today we hear certain groups stress that there was a lot of reporting in the 1970s that scientists felt an ice age was coming.
This is quite true.
There were a huge number of such news reports throughout that decade.
It was a real presence in the popular media, and no amount of historical revisioning changes that.
For a fair example of where this issue stood in the public consciousness, check out this episode of the popular TV show In Search of with Leonard Nimoy, titled The Coming Ice Age from 1978.
Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way.
According to recent evidence, it could come sooner than anyone had expected.
At weather stations in the far north, temperatures have been dropping for 30 years.
Sea coasts, long free of summer ice, are now blocked year-round.
According to some climatologists, within a lifetime, we might be living in the next ice age.
Websites of global warming deniers give long lists of newspaper and magazine articles from the 1970s, trumpeting the alarm that an ice age is on its way.
Any reasonable person who were to look at one of these pages would have to conclude that the science was pretty clear back then.
The Earth is cooling and cooling fast.
40 years later, we can now see that it didn't happen.
And so the global warming deniers argue, if scientists were that wrong back then, why shouldn't we think that they're wrong now when they say global warming is happening?
Allow me to summarize.
It is true that all this news did appear in the popular mass media and TV shows like In Search of.
But, believe it or not, the news media had the same proclivity then as they do now for reporting what's new and sensational.
Climatologists had known for a long time about the greenhouse effect and the warming produced by carbon dioxide, but until the latter half of the 20th century, nobody had really been able to put together predictive models.
Then, in the late 1960s, the University of Washington published the cooling effects produced by sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere, which reflected solar radiation away from the Earth.
This was a profound new twist, and suddenly everyone started testing for sulfate aerosols, an industrial pollutant which is also the cause of acid rain.
You may remember that from the 1970s as well.
Cooling effects were added onto climate models, and for a time a number of climatologists weren't sure which effect was going to be the more significant.
That was all it took to make a sensational headline, and the mass media ensured that we'd have shocking fears to keep us alarmed throughout the decade.
But beneath the surface, the response of mainstream climatologists was more measured.
For the uncertainty that did exist, it was not a case of, hey, we don't understand climate.
And it was never a case of, it's getting cooler, an ice age must be coming.
Rather, it was uncertainty over which of two man-made influences would be the larger in coming decades.
Warming from CO2 emissions or cooling due to sulfate aerosols.
This was a question in part because sulfate aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming do not cancel each other out, because their effects happen at different times and places.
Aerosol cooling happens over polluted industrial areas in the northern hemisphere, mainly during daylight hours in summer, while greenhouse gas warming has very little such variation.
The two forces complicate one another, as opposed to canceling each other out.
In the 1970s, when these discoveries were new, many weren't yet certain whether one or the other might win out.
The warming effect of greenhouse gases was undisputed and had always been.
But there was a new concern that the aerosol cooling might be even larger, at least in the short term.
At a basic level, all the news reporting about global cooling can be traced back to this specific question.
But also during the 1970s, nations worldwide took drastic steps to reduce acid rain and sulfate emissions.
The sulfate aerosols cleared up pretty quickly, and those who wondered whether their effect might trump warming quickly had their answer.
It is absolutely still an important variable in our prediction models, but we no longer have the concern that some did in the 1970s that sulfate aerosol cooling might have a greater impact than greenhouse gas warming.
One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus.
It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media.
The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling.
28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming.
In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude that an ice age is coming.
Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.
A Skeptical Adventure at Sea 00:06:45
Hey everyone, I want to remind you about a truly unique and once-in-a-lifetime adventure.
Join me and Mediterranean archaeologist Dr. Flint Dibble for a skeptoid sailing adventure through the Mediterranean Sea aboard the SV Royal Clipper, the world's largest full-rigged sailing ship.
This is also the only opportunity you'll have to hear Flint and I talk about our experiences when we both went on Joe Rogan to represent the causes of science and reality against whatever it is that you get when you're thrown into that lion pit.
We set sail from Málaga, Spain on April 18th, 2026 and finished the adventure in Nice, France on April 25th.
You'll enjoy a fascinating skeptical mini-conference at sea.
You'll visit amazing ports along the Spanish and French coasts and Flint will be our exclusive onboard expert sharing the real archaeology and history about every stop.
We've got special side quests and extra skeptical content planned at each port.
This is a true sailing ship.
You can climb the rat lines to the crow's nest, handle the sails.
You can even take the helm and steer.
This is a real bucket list adventure you don't want to miss.
But cabins are selling fast and this ship does always sell out.
Act now or you'll miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Get the full details and book your cabin at skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Hope to see you on board.
That's skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Even Exxon, a major fossil fuel company, was well aware in the 1970s that global warming caused by carbon dioxide from their product was potentially catastrophic.
Like all oil companies, Exxon employed a battalion of climate scientists to help them strategize their future, and they needed to know as accurately as possible what the future held.
In 2015, Inside Climate News concluded an eight-month investigation into what Exxon knew in the 1970s and what they did about it.
One internal Exxon memo from 1978 said, What is considered the best presently available climate model for treating the greenhouse effect predicts that a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would produce a mean temperature increase of about 2 to 3 degrees Celsius over most of the Earth.
Present thinking holds that man has a time window of 5 to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.
Exxon scientists did their best to pitch the importance of these studies to management.
The rationale for Exxon's involvement and commitment of funds and personnel is based on our need to assess the possible impact of the greenhouse effect on Exxon's business.
In addition, the international significance of the proposed programs will enhance the exon image in the public domain and provide great public relations value.
For me, the single most compelling time capsule showing what the scientific community believed in the 1970s is found in the National Academy of Sciences' 1977 publication, Energy and Climate, Studies in Geophysics.
It's a sizable tome, but well worth the free download if you have a few hours or weeks to kill.
Its 10 chapters cover worldwide energy consumption, natural climate changes, industrial particulates and gases, energy transfer in the oceans, and climate modeling, and throughout it all runs constant study of CO2 levels.
Its 62 authors represented most of the major research universities, institutions, and agencies in the United States.
If this report can be taken as a fair assessment of the best state of our knowledge at the time, and I would argue that it can, then it is indeed fair to say that there was less agreement in the 1970s than there is now.
But let us be very clear on what the range of that disagreement was.
I offer the following paragraph from the report's foreword.
It will be noted that there are differences in the quantitative results of models developed by Ravel and Monk, by Keeling and Bacchaste, and by others for partitioning carbon dioxide among the atmosphere, the oceans, and the biosphere.
What is important is not that there are differences, but that the span of agreement embraces a four-fold to eight-fold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the latter part of the 22nd century.
Our best understanding of the relation between an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and change in global temperature suggests a corresponding increase in average world temperatures of more than six degrees Celsius, with polar temperature increases of as much as three times this figure.
This would exceed by far the temperature fluctuations of the past several thousand years and would very likely, along the way, have a highly significant impact on global precipitation.
There was no fear of global cooling.
None.
Not even a whimper of trepidation.
The sulfate aerosol cooling was absolutely discussed and the authors were clear that the extent of its effects were not yet known.
But there was no suspicion that it might trump greenhouse gas warming.
40 years later, we have a lot more data from a lot more sources around the world, and we've been able to focus the probabilities to tighter ranges.
The forward continued.
If the preliminary estimates of climate change in the latter part of the 22nd century are validated, a reassessment of global energy policy must be started promptly because long before that destined date, there will have been major climatic impacts all over the world.
So there you have it.
Yes, there were a lot of predictions of an oncoming ice age in the popular mass media in the 1970s, and there was some uncertainty in the climatology community due to insufficient data.
But the fundamental observation that dominates today's climate science, that global warming is happening and is driven by man-made carbon dioxide emissions, was as real then as it is today.
That this prediction has only become more thoroughly substantiated since Leonard Nimoy told us otherwise is a strength of the theory, not a weakness.
Why Skepticism Is Best Medicine 00:01:31
Every Skeptoid episode has complete bibliographic references on its transcript page at skeptoid.com.
Plus further reading suggestions if you want to know more.
You're listening to Skeptoid, a listener-supported program.
I'm Brian Dunning from skeptoid.com.
Hello everyone, this is Adrienne Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection