Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was
Myth often cited by global warming skeptics debunked
font_down font_up Text Size
  • CHILLING POSSIBILITIES
  • Read the original article on Climate Change as it was posted in the 1975 edition of Science News.

The reasons to disbelieve that humans are causing global warming are many and varied, skeptics say. For example: Natural factors such as long-term variations in solar radiation are causing the rise in worldwide average temperature. The urban heat island effect is skewing modern weather data, so the warming observed in recent decades isn’t real. And besides, not long ago experts all believed the Earth was cooling, not warming.

Actually, research has shown that many such ideas are bogus. While changes in solar output have slightly increased global average temperature since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the planet-warming effect of man-made greenhouse gases is about 20 times larger (“Heated dispute” letter, SN: 10/27/07, p. 271). And although cities are warmer than neighboring rural areas, that phenomenon doesn’t mask recent warming trends in long-established cities (“Don’t blame the cities,” SN Online: 9/5/08).

Now, new research also skewers the global warming skeptics’ claim that, in the 1970s, scientists believed that an ice age was imminent. Researchers of the day had discovered that Earth had been cooling since the 1940s. Some believed that continued increases in the amount of planet-cooling aerosols kicked up or emitted by human activity — dust and smog, for example — could easily tip the planet into an ever-deepening cycle of cooling, skeptics have repeatedly pointed out. That wave of concern was obviously a false alarm, the skeptics note, so maybe today’s scientists are equally mistaken about global warming.

Not true, climatologist Thomas C. Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and his colleagues report in the September Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The team’s survey of major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979 found that only seven articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions.

The findings were “a surprise to us,” Peterson says. For decades the “skeptics had repeated their argument so often and so strongly that we misremembered the tenor of the times.”

When these skeptics mention previous concerns about global cooling, they typically cite media reports from the 1970s rather than journal papers —“a part of their tremendous smoke screen on this issue,” says Peterson. Among major magazines, Time and Newsweek ran articles expressing concern about the previous decades’ cooling trend, juxtaposing the specter of decreased food production with rising global population.

access
CRYING WOLF?Global warming naysayers point to past media coverage of cooling trends to suggest the fallibility of today’s climatologists. But most evidence suggested a warmer future. Science News Archives, Courtesy of Newsweek

But even a cursory review of 1970s media accounts shows that there was no consensus about global cooling among journalists, either, Peterson says. In May 1975, the headline of a New York Times article warned that “major cooling may be ahead.” Three months later, another headline in the same paper — atop a feature written by the same reporter — stated that two recent journal articles “counter [the] view that [a] cold period is due.”

When skeptics do cite a research paper that predicted the possibility of global cooling, it is almost invariably a 1971 article in Science coauthored by Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider, then a graduate student at Columbia University. That paper suggested that a fourfold increase in atmospheric aerosols could increase worldwide cooling enough to trigger an ice age.

But soon after the paper was published, new information emerged, Schneider says. First, the global cooling effect of aerosols wasn’t as large as estimated, in part because the tiny particles appeared in high concentrations over only about one-fifth of the planet, primarily around major cities. Second, Schneider adds, scientists discovered that many other minor constituents of the atmosphere — including methane, ozone and man-made gases such as chlorofluorocarbons — have the same warming effect that carbon dioxide does.

By the late 1970s, these realizations, along with insights from studies of the cooling effects of aerosols spewed from an Indonesian volcano in 1963, helped climatologists better estimate the balance between greenhouse gas warming and aerosol-induced cooling. This rapid evolution of understanding, says Schneider, is a testament to the self-correcting nature of the scientific process — a question is posed, data are collected, analyses are performed and then opinions and theories are modified, if need be, based on results of the research.

When global warming skeptics draw misleading comparisons between scientists’ nascent understanding of climate processes in the 1970s and their level of knowledge today, “it’s absolute nonsense,” Schneider says. Back then, scientists were just beginning to study climate trends and their causes, and the probability of finding evidence to disprove a particular hypothesis was relatively high. Nowadays, he contends, “the likelihood of new evidence to overthrow the concept of global warming is small. Warming is virtually certain.”

Most climatologists have long shared a feeling that discussions in the 1970s about global cooling were common in the media but not in scientific journals, says Richard Somerville, a climatologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. Peterson’s research “is a levelheaded, not strident” documentation of that contention. Somerville says the new findings “will not stop the critics [of global warming] from repeating their myth, but for people who are willing to listen with an open mind, this is a nice piece of work.”

Despite the lopsided tally of journal articles that predicted global warming versus those that foretold a long-term cooling trend, the new findings may not sway many hard-core skeptics, says Alan Robock, an atmospheric scientist at Rutgers–New Brunswick in New Jersey. Peterson “is wasting his time by addressing these global warming critics,” he says. “There are only a few of them.”

Back Story | Ups and downs in global temperature

Click the timeline to view an enlarged version.

Ups and downs in global temperature

1870s

Efforts to collect global temperature records begin

1938

First analysis to show long-term warming trend

1960s

First recognition that Earth, on average, had been cooling for two-plus decades

1978

The balance between aerosols’ cooling and greenhouse gases’ warming effects is clear


Found in: Climate Change and Science & Society
Comments 16
  • ART DAY said, "The Law of Scientific Equilibrium: If it is settled in is not science. If it is science it is not settled."

    That is total nonsense, of course.

    Uncertainties about climate issues is no excuse for outright denial. The challenge now is to make climate models as accurate as possible, so of course scientists will criticize each other's models, even while acknowledging the reality of the man-made global warming hypothesis.

    Denialists get great mileage by appealing to commonly held prejudices rooted in laziness. And that's why they are so resented.
    Dale Husband Dale Husband
    Jan. 3, 2009 at 4:52am
  • In the article “Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was”, by Sid Perkins; October 25th, 2008; Vol.174 #9 the author asserts that there was never an agreement on the concept of global cooling into a coming ice age. While the author is correct, I am afraid he has uncovered more of a cultural media phenomenon than a scientific issue. The research environment of the late 1960’s and 70’s was very different from the media and industry driven system we see today. Research funding was far more predictable and less agenda driven. The scientific community was just as likely to avoid the winds of scientific celebrity and sensationalism as to embrace them. There were far fewer opportunities to access the media and the public did not have such voracious interest in the trends of the moment as they do today. The result was a culture more interested true scientific debate than scientific sensationalism. Not surprisingly Mr. Perkins found a healthy give and take going on in the journals and popular publications of the day. This environment would be considered a research nirvana compared to the industrial, agenda driven funding system we have today complete with its own media circus. We have created a system that squelches alternate views in the interests of assuring funding. The real question that needs researching is how did we get here and how do we get back.

    Scott Manhart

    Scott  Manhart Scott Manhart
    Nov. 12, 2008 at 9:32pm
  • @Henry Galt
    It looks like I get a second chance after all since my previus post didn't seem to get in.

    Among things for which there is absolutely no evidence at all:
    A man being created from dirt by a super-being
    A woman being created from his rib
    Talking snakes
    Fruit that gives the eater great knowledge
    A single man saving the world from a flood with his boat
    People living for 800 years or more
    Burning bushes that talk
    People turning into pillars of salt for turning around and looking at ht smoking ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah
    People rising from the dead.
    Freshly-risen dead being beamed up to heaven
    Nonetheless, I am fairly religious and believe all of that. Not because someone offered proof, but because I understood that my own personal knowledge cannot possibly be all that there is, no matter how well I edicate myself.

    The first step in your discovery of the truth (or not) of Human-Caused climate change is certainly not going to come in the form of a carload of geeks in lab coats dropping off a stack of books, charts and diagrams at your door.

    Generally, if one wishes to obtain knowledge, one must first seek it. You must look, Mr. Galt - certainly the evidence is all around you, as there is no disagreement amongst scientists about it, despite what those who can't see past themselves would have you believe.

    Everything in the world is made of things that the average person will never see or experience in any meaningful way - atoms, molecules, and so on. At this very moment, your body is being penetrated by hundreds of particles of cosmic radiation, yet you don't feel a thing.

    Deriding the educated as "elitists" brings nothing to the table but the behavior of children calling each other named in the schoolyard. We "elitists" (and goodness, has the connotation of that word changed in the last few years) are working hard to solve this problem, and suppose when it is found, and the evidence becomes clear to even the most hard-headed, that there is precious little room at the inn for the people who stood in the way of this progress? Suppose the solution can be localized and these elitists keep it for themselves?

    The worst thing that happens if we prepare and nothing happens is that there is a lifestyle improvement. On the other hand, if we don't prepare and it's every bit as bad as predicted, millions - perhaps even billions will die. A simple cost/benefit analysis would seem to send even a skeptic to the bookstore.

    Just two weeks ago, more money was thrown at greedy Wall Street bankers, who are at this very moment paying it to themselves in the form of bonuses. This money is more than has been used to educate our children for the last decade or so. It also represents about the next five years or so of your tax dollars. All the money ever spent on climate science is a mere drop in this bucket. Imagine what a new generation of better educated young people could have done instead. In light of the $700 Billion sweepstakes (10x the US GDP), the $50 to $100 of the average individual's taxes going to climate science is the proverbial drop in the ocean. It's one thing to worry about how one's tax dollars are spent - I for example would like to see less spent overseas and more here at home - but quite another to quibble over pennies while hundred dollar bills are blowing away in a tornado.

    Mr. Galt, waiting for a carload of scientists to drive up to your house to drop off a pile of books, charts, and computer models is likely to be a long, long wait. If you want to know, you have to look. By the time its on the TV news, it will be far, far, far too late.

    Unfortunately, in recent years, our country has fractured across all manner of ideological, dogmatic lines. Maybe some people think that this is a good thing. I don't. This, and many other issues call for unified action at every level of society. Something that cannot happen until we begin to heal these fractures.

    Its OK to be a skeptic. But a skeptic who refuses to educate him/herself... That's not a skeptic, that's just being hard-headed.

    So, Mr Galt, and those like you, feel free to be hard-headed, but at least be honest and say so instead claiming to be a skeptic.
    Lionel Mandrake Lionel Mandrake
    Nov. 2, 2008 at 2:57pm
  • I apologize, Mr. Galt - I misspelled your name every time I wrote it. Unfortunately, there's no "Correct my post" button.
    Lionel Mandrake Lionel Mandrake
    Nov. 2, 2008 at 1:56pm
  • if you want to see what the agenda is realy all about read Orwell's book "1984"that is what it is all about.
    Jeff Hays geoph69
    Nov. 2, 2008 at 12:03am
  • I agree with Henry. That is all I will say since what I want to say will not be posted. Freedom of speach, what a joke.
    Jeff Hays geoph69
    Nov. 1, 2008 at 11:54pm
  • Daniel Miller

    I don't ask for proof as that would be non-scientific I have been told repeatedly.

    What I desperately want is some evidence that would overturn my experience of the increasing cold.

    Just a piece of evidence that would let me go back to my business and relax in the knowledge that CO2 being declared a dangerous pollutant, draconian taxes need to be implemented to counter same and dragging us back to the caves will save mankind.

    One piece of evidence that shows that CO2 increases have made temperatures rise. At all.
    Henry Galt Henry Galt
    Oct. 22, 2008 at 7:10am
  • The global warming deniers, and that is exactly what they are, seem to have the same mindset as the creationists. Their constant refrain is that they need proof, but when you show them proof, they either move the goal line or deny what is in front of their noses.

    Their problem is not that science is faulty. Their problem is that they lack a mindset that recognizes reality and prefer to live in their own little cocoons of fantasy.

    Carl Sagan said it best when he talked about how scientists will change their minds when presented with proof, not as often as they should, but it happens on a daily basis. Nonscientists, on the other hand, absolutely refuse to change their minds when shown their mistake prefering to live in their cognitive dissonance where their lives and well-being may be at stake, but their little minds are well-balanced.
    Daniel Miller Daniel Miller
    Oct. 20, 2008 at 12:01pm
  • The Law of Scientific Equilibrium: If it is settled in is not science. If it is science it is not settled.
    ART DAY ART DAY
    Oct. 19, 2008 at 10:56pm
  • #Alan Robock

    Just a little glimpse of what _anyone_ is "doing" with the "science" would be nice. And if you could provide, say, a shred of "evidence" to back up the claims of some that the amazing gas of life, CO2, is capable of performing even more miraculous gymnastics that could/will cause runaway warming, that would be gratefully received also. Then we could go home, nurse our wounds and let "the big boys" get back to their science.

    If the science is settled why succumb to resentment when faced with differing opinion? Why not just ignore us? Surely we will wither on the vine. Just get on with your science.

    Until such time as someone produces a definitive breakdown of how CO2 can possible damage the biosphere, with or without raising temperatures, some of us will continue to rail against the injustices, taxation and "mitigation" foisted upon us by agenda driven fundamentalists.

    Learn to live with us if you cannot produce a single believable reason why we should just stand here and meekly accept your grace's proclamations - because some of us are not going away. We are angry at your claims, we are outraged that you feel that _we_ must prove _your_ crazy theory for you and we are mystified when called names like "denier" by supposedly impartial "scientists".

    There is no rush to "study climate change" - it isn't going away anytime soon. Global warming seems to have slowed down a lot recently but if it floats your boat so be it. Just don't attempt to beat up the rest of us with your unfounded fears. Please grow up.


    Henry Galt Henry Galt
    Oct. 18, 2008 at 3:38pm
  • #Alan Robock

    Just a little glimpse of what _anyone_ is "doing" with the "science" would be nice. And if you could provide, say, a shred of "evidence" to back up the claims of some that the amazing gas of life, CO2, is capable of performing even more miraculous gymnastics that could/will cause runaway warming, that would be gratefully received also. Then we could go home, nurse our wounds and let "the big boys" get back to their science.

    If the science is settled why succumb to resentment when faced with differing opinion? Why not just ignore us? Surely we will wither on the vine. Just get on with your science.

    Until such time as someone produces a definitive breakdown of how CO2 can possible damage the biosphere, with or without raising temperatures, some of us will continue to rail against the injustices, taxation and "mitigation" foisted upon us by agenda driven fundamentalists.

    Learn to live with us if you cannot produce a single believable reason why we should just stand here and meekly accept your grace's proclamations - because some of us are not going away. We are angry at your claims, we are outraged that you feel that _we_ must prove _your_ crazy theory for you and we are mystified when called names like "denier" by supposedly impartial "scientists".

    There is no rush to "study climate change" - it isn't going away anytime soon. Global warming seems to have slowed down a lot recently but if it floats your boat so be it. Just don't attempt to beat up the rest of us with your unfounded fears. Please grow up.


    Henry Galt Henry Galt
    Oct. 18, 2008 at 3:37pm
  • I came across an interesting article at http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf
    It looks at several flip flops in the media starting with cooling reports in 1895. Science News is mentioned on pages 4 and 12 thanks to the cover story (I remember the cover!) from March 1, 1975. I guess SN counts as media and not journal, so that means SN was part of the problem. :-)
    Ric Werme Ric Werme
    Oct. 14, 2008 at 9:23pm
  • I was misquoted by Perkins. What I said was that I resented that we have to waste our time debunking global warming deniers rather than doing science. Certainly Peterson and colleagues did a service by pointing out yet another misrepresentation of our science, but it would have been better if they could have spent their time studying climate change and helping us address the problem of global warming.
    Alan Robock Alan Robock
    Oct. 14, 2008 at 10:28am
  • The new paper described in this article discusses the 1975 Science News feature, noting that it provided context and qualifying language, including comments that the evidence didn't warrant extrapolating to a long-term cooling trend, and that experts even then foresaw that global temperatures were likely to rise by the end of the century. And the cover headline of that issue -- "The Ice Age Cometh?" -- was wisely punctuated with a question mark. I'll see if we can post the original feature.
    Tom Siegfried Tom Siegfried
    Oct. 16, 2008 at 10:21am
  • Interesting how "human based" global weather is spun on both sides! I think that "consensus" rails against the very fundamentals of scientific inquiry as it removes motivation for necessary re-confirmations of theory. Scientific Method is not a path to knowledge, rather it provides signposts to guide individuals in their personal dogma (belief system). Any Scientist must fundamentally reject dogma to remain objective. Absolute objectivity is required if data is not to be tainted by an agenda.
    Glenn Ripley gripley@myspclstitches.com
    Oct. 16, 2008 at 10:46am
  • To Alan Robock: the only way to debunk global warming deniers is by actually doing science. You should be welcoming deniers who keep your cause in the limelight, since it undoubtedly contributes to the ease with which you can obtain funding. (I assume that you're referring to anthropogenic global warming.) Regrettably, what we have today is a massive politically-driven PR exercise wrapped around a little bit of science. We definitely need more and better data.
    Warren Funk Warren Funk
    Oct. 16, 2008 at 11:17am
Post a comment

Please login or register to participate.


Advertisement
Suggested Reading:
seperator
  • Perkins, S. 2007. Heated dispute. Science News 172(Oct. 27):271. [Go to]
  • Perkins, S. 2007. From Bad to Worse: Earth's warming to accelerate. Science News 171(Feb. 10):83.
    [Go to]
  • Perkins, S. 2008. Don't blame the cities: Urban heat islands not responsible for global warming [Go to]
  • Perkins, S. 2006. Limited Storage: Lack of nutrients will constrain carbon uptake. Science News 169(Apr. 15):229. [Go to]
  • Perkins, S. 2004. Warmer climate, decreased rice yield. Science News 166(Jul. 10):29. [Go to]
  • Perkins, S. 2001. Can banking carbon cool the greenhouse? Stockpiling carbon dioxide in plants and soil may be effective only for the short term, if at all. Science News 158(Dec. 16):396. [Go to]
Citations & References:
seperator
  • Peterson, T.C., W.M. Connolley, and J. Fleck. 2008.
    The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (Sept.):1325. [Go to]

Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator