Climate change-1970's style

While helping my mother clean out her garage we came across some older books she had boxed and was planning on throwing away. Knowing that I had just finished my home library she asked if I would like them. I agreed to take the boxes back and go through them and keep the books that gave me interest. One of them is entitled Strange Stories, Amazing Facts and was published by Readers Digest in 1976.

While perusing the book I came upon this essay (which had no direct credits listed) and decided to transcribe its contents here in full as I found them to be rather contemporaneous in regards the current climate change/global warming debate.

WILL THE ICE AGE RETURN?

 

The world is cooling-helped by man


Some scientists are convinced that the world’s climate is getting colder every year, threatening a return to the conditions of the last ice age, which reached its peak about 18,000 years ago.

Geological and historical records leave no doubt that the earth’s climate is constantly changing. From about 400 B.C. to A.D. 1300, the climate in Europe was much milder than it is today.

During the little ice age, from about 1300 to 1890, glaciers advanced, and bodies of water in the northern latitudes, such as the Baltic Sea, remained frozen for long periods of time.

From about 1890 to 1940 worldwide temperatures rose about 0.18 * F every 10 years. Some animals extended their ranges northward, the sea was less frozen then before, and icebergs from Greenland did not penetrate as far south.

Since 1940 temperature has been dropping. According to a survey by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the average ground readings for the Northern Hemisphere have, in the years from 1945 to 1968, fallen by one-half degree F. In the United States, east of the Continental Divide, temperatures in the last decade have averaged one to four degrees cooler than in the past 30 years. Another study by the same agency noted that the amount of sunshine decreased by 1.3 percent between 1964 and 1972.

Dr. James D. McQuigg, director if NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, points out that in crop-growing regions at higher latitudes an apparently small change in the average annual temperature may have sufficient impact on the length of the growing season to cause certain crops to be abandoned. He also notes that the range of year-to-year weather-induced variability in world production of wheat and other grain crops-the difference between production in a highly favorable weather year and that in a definitely poor year-is now equal to about 10 percent of annual world consumption. “In a real sense”, he says, “the fact that we have a margin of reserves at all is the result of good luck with weather through a few most recent years.”

Most experts would agree that the basic cause of cooling is a change in the amount of the sun’s heat reaching the earth. How this change comes about and keeps the world in a recurring cycle of ice ages, followed by warm interglacial periods, has been the subject of a long debate among scientists. Many ideas have been proposed, but the one that seems to provide many answers and has much support was developed in the 1920’s and 1930’s by a Serbian physicist, Milutin Milankovitch.

In addition to spinning on its own axis and orbiting the sun, the earth also performs three other delicate motions. It wobbles on that axis, like a child’s top about to come to rest; the axis itself changes the pitch of its tilt in relation to its plane of orbit; and, finally, the ellipse that the earth describes around the sun periodically becomes more circular. These movements are hardly violent-it takes 21,00 years for the earth to complete a simple wobble, for instance-but they are enough, according to Milankovitch’s theory, to account for the great climatic changes that have occasioned the ice ages.

Some things that struck me as interesting was that ‘some scientists’ were convinced about the climate change, there was no general consensus implied by the article. Another line that struck me was, ‘Geological and historical records leave no doubt that the earth’s climate is constantly changing’, a somewhat familiar counter-argument.

Another part that struck me as similar to the ‘modern’ debate is the use of a very small sampling of years to corroborate the theory with the observed science, only the years between 1964 to 1972 (7 in total) was used to buttress the argument.

The subtle implication of world-wide famine caused by climate change was also included in the commentary by the NOAA’s director. However, ‘most experts’ could not agree on the root cause of the climate change, which, if you read between the lines, was actually postulating that an increase in temperature was a positive occurrence. Was it the sun? The earth’s orbit or its axial rotation?

The part that really struck me as the greatest of ironies was right in the title; The world is cooling-helped by man. The travesty is that the entire essay has not one reference to manmade climate change, yet, it states without equivocation, that it is caused man.








[edit on 4-1-2010 by AugustusMasonicus]

Anything they can do to try and tax or regulate our lives even more than they already are. Not surprised to see this from back then at all. Good find and very amusing read.

Well, that's interesting. I've seen this article quoted as text on the interdweebs a few times before. For example, here:

NY Times Blog

Post at 21/11/2009, 10.48pm

Appears to be different than the one you quote. As you have a hard copy, can you scan it and upload? I know someone who'd be interested in a copy of it.

Cheers.

bumping this thread.
This is why the old "if you're not a climatologist, shut up" argument really gets to me. Sciencists in every given field are incomplete in their understanding. I know this because they're still learning.
This system is best fitted to our abilities as humans, for sure, but too many times they claim to "have it", only to be proven wrong by the next generation. A pure scientist, without political/financial agenda, is a very selfless person. Can't say the same thing about them these days though.

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, that's interesting. I've seen this article quoted as text on the interdweebs a few times before. For example, here:

NY Times Blog

Post at 21/11/2009, 10.48pm

Thank you for the link, I was hoping to locate the author but it appears that the article is also uncredited there as well.

Appears to be different than the one you quote. As you have a hard copy, can you scan it and upload? I know someone who'd be interested in a copy of it.

Yes, you seem to have a earlier version (1975) where as the book I have is dated as 1976. Interesting how the pollution in the earlier article contributes to a decrease as the contemporary sentiment is that it leads to an increase.

I will try to scan the article as best I can, the print is rather small so hopefully it comes out legible.




[edit on 4-1-2010 by AugustusMasonicus]

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


The only problem with it is the source.

I do not know about in 1970's, but in the 80's we were allowed to reference anything but a Reader's Digest in College.

It was a non-allowable reference source.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
I will try to scan the article as best I can, the print is rather small so hopefully it comes out legible.

Yeah, no worries, anything you can do would be appreciated. I know someone who collects these sort of media stories.

reply to post by endisnighe


I agree the source material is not the greatest but I was not posting it as a scientific rebuttal. It was more of thread on how little things change and how sensationalism was used in this article to further the point despite the derth of evidence to support the article.

I did go throught the index but could not find the credited author or the original article/material in which this appeared. Perhaps a more thorough Google search may yield this information.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by AugustusMasonicus]

Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, no worries, anything you can do would be appreciated. I know someone who collects these sort of media stories.

I uploaded it to my media page, hopefully the article is ledgible enough for you friend.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
I uploaded it to my media page, hopefully the article is ledgible enough for you friend.

Excellent, thanks, you're a star!

Will be added to an annals of crappy popular media reporting of climate science. Looks like they might have just regurgitated the same title and intro as the earlier article or something.

Cheers.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Looks like they might have just regurgitated the same title and intro as the earlier article or something.

I concur. This is what makes approaching these issues very difficult. Someone else's perception or bias can unduely influence how the material is presented or received.

Glad I could help with the article.

I heard Ann Coulter say in an interview say that Evolutionary theory wasn't "good Science" the interviewer asked her what her theory was and she said "I don't know, I'm not a scientist" haha...

That book was written before the Vostok ice core samples were taken which clearly show a corelation between increased CO2 levels and increased global temps.



Regardless, whether or not the PTB are taking advantage of the situation makes no difference. The data still shows that we are headed for big time climate change.

reply to post by Anamnesis


What they don't tell you is that in those graphs Carbon increase lags BEHIND temperature increase by about 800 years.

edit to remove double post

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Anamnesis]

Originally posted by MrVertigo
reply to post by Anamnesis

 

What they don't tell you is that in those graphs Carbon increase lags BEHIND temperature increase by about 800 years.

Actually, the temperature increases lag anywhere between 200 to 1000 years. Which is GREAT NEWS for us eh? We'll be long gone by the time the effects are full blown!! Who gives a rats A$$ about our childrens childrens children, right? They'll just have to figure out how to live on a planet that becomes more and more un-livable by the year.

The legacy of un-relenting abuse to this planet is ours to claim!!! Woo Hoo!



[edit on 5-1-2010 by Anamnesis]

What caused CO2 to rise in the past and what caused it to drop down again ?

Looking at the chart it appears to jump up quickly then slowly reduce till the next sudden jump up.

Whats going on there ?

If some neanderthals dressed in bear skins can survive an ice age, so can my childrens children. And don't forget, we can't see cause, the noise you hear when you clap could just be coincidence (Even though it's improbabble) so why couldn't CO2 and temp. just be correlation?

Also, Glaciologically, an ice age is a period in the Earth's history when there are polar ice caps. Our current temperate climate is an interglacial period, which started 10,000 years ago, in the (perhaps) fourth Ice Age. When this will end is anyone's guess; ideas about the duration of the interglacial period range from 12,000 to 50,000 years (without allowing for man-made influences).

Why does the temperature at the poles necessarily reflect the temperature elsewhere on the planet ?

Your not trying to tell me that because the north pole had a cold day it means its cold everywhere else

Brrrrr. Maybe this was why big muffs were so popular in the seventies...the kind for warming your hands, sickos!

Ice Age hysteria was flirted with in 1978. That year scientist Dr. Robert Jastrow noted, “The longest this part of the world has been without an ice age until now is 10,000 years. We now have gone 11,000 years without one.” Thirty years later (in 2008), the Columbia University space scientist may have interpreted this as evidence for global warming, but in 1978 he suggested that we are overdue for the next ice age, and that it only takes a shift of five degrees in the average temperature to produce one. Seattle Times feature columnist Eric Lacitis picked up this story for an article published February 4, 1978. Quoting from Nigel Calder’s popular book The Weather Machine, Lacitis described a fresh theory called “snowblitz.” It explains that, “like airborne troops, invading snowflakes seize whole countries in a single winter.” The snow “lies through the summer and autumn, reflecting the sunshine.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Deny Arrogance]

Originally posted by bigyin
Why does the temperature at the poles necessarily reflect the temperature elsewhere on the planet ?

Your not trying to tell me that because the north pole had a cold day it means its cold everywhere else

Wow... you really don't understand the Earth's climate systems do you? Have a look at the data, it wasn't just a "cold day". And yes, polar temps are directly related to global mean temps.

Incendia vox~ Last time I checked, the Neanderthals were extinct.

bigyin~ Uh... the rise and fall of the temps are directly correlated to the CO2 levels. Did you look at the chart?

Funny how people seem to think they know best when most of the experts tell us that climate change is here and CO2 levels are direclty responsible. It's kind of like Ann Coulter syaing "it's all bunk" but "I'm no Scientist".

It just makes sense to clean up and decrease CO2 emmisions. Don't you all give a damn about your offspring?

Here's a great argument for "doing something" about it. Just a warning though, the argument is presented in a logical manner, no rhetoric or propaganda. I know that logic is hard to swallow on ATS but you probably won't choke on it.




Look.... I'm not arguing that Al Gore's proposals are sound, or that Carbon credits, etc. is the way to go. The PTB have indeed latched onto the situation as a means of control but that doesn't mean that it's not actually happening. It's insidious, we have a real crisis on our hands and the PTB is making it a political football. Folks, I honestly hope that it's all just BS but I don't think it is. Can we afford to take the risk and just "see what happens"?



[edit on 5-1-2010 by Anamnesis]