5 ms·

Nah. In 1974 and 1975, Time and Newsweek respectively ran articles proposing a global cooling trend. These articles were (loosely) based on a couple of papers

Nah. In 1974 and 1975, Time and Newsweek respectively ran articles proposing a global cooling trend. These articles were (loosely) based on a couple of papers that found that if fine-particulate atmospheric aerosols continued to increase the way they were, they could reflect away enough sunlight to cause surface cooling. (And in fact, exactly that was happening during the 70s.) However, the Clean Air Act and other similar efforts around the world reduced the amount of particulate aerosols in the air. The amount of CO2 kept climbing though, so the warming model won. The consensus among published climate science papers at the time was predicting an overall warming trend. But then Dennis Miller said that scientists believed in an ice age in the 70s, and a bunch of suckers fell for it. More reading at https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-in... and https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-cl...

mturmon 7y ago
Also for reference on the history of climate science: Here is a paper [1] from James Hansen in Science magazine, in 1981, that warns of crisis-level warming. From the abstract -- > In the 21st century, we will see "creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage." For whatever it's worth, this also appeared on the NYTimes front page in 1981. That's just one publication. Throughout the 1980s there were broad-based studies, mandated by Congress, that indicated the scope of the warming problem. See [2], from 1983. By contrast, I don't think the possible cooling effect ever received broad support, it was more of a hypothesis. [1] https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html [2] https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18714/changing-climate-report-of.. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18714/changing-climate-report-of....
droithomme 7y ago
> the Clean Air Act and other similar efforts around the world reduced the amount of particulate aerosols in the air. You just found a solution to global warming. Since you agree that particulate aerosols in the air were going to cause an ice age and the Clean Air Act would fix that, then the Clean Air Act is what has contributed more than anything else to global warming. Repeal the Clean Air Act, reintroduce those old aerosols, and the problem is solved. The global cooling certainty cancels out the global warming certainty and normalcy is achieved.
- hcknwscommenter 7y ago
  Sure. Now do the math on how much it will cost to make the aerosols and how many deaths due to respiratory illness it will cause.
- abathur 7y ago
  Ah. Yes. The good ol' reductio-ab-London argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London

mturmon 7y ago

Also for reference on the history of climate science: Here is a paper [1] from James Hansen in Science magazine, in 1981, that warns of crisis-level warming. From the abstract -- > In the 21st century, we will see "creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage." For whatever it's worth, this also appeared on the NYTimes front page in 1981. That's just one publication. Throughout the 1980s there were broad-based studies, mandated by Congress, that indicated the scope of the warming problem. See [2], from 1983. By contrast, I don't think the possible cooling effect ever received broad support, it was more of a hypothesis. [1] https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html [2] https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18714/changing-climate-report-of.. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18714/changing-climate-report-of....

droithomme 7y ago

> the Clean Air Act and other similar efforts around the world reduced the amount of particulate aerosols in the air. You just found a solution to global warming. Since you agree that particulate aerosols in the air were going to cause an ice age and the Clean Air Act would fix that, then the Clean Air Act is what has contributed more than anything else to global warming. Repeal the Clean Air Act, reintroduce those old aerosols, and the problem is solved. The global cooling certainty cancels out the global warming certainty and normalcy is achieved.

hcknwscommenter 7y ago
Sure. Now do the math on how much it will cost to make the aerosols and how many deaths due to respiratory illness it will cause.
abathur 7y ago
Ah. Yes. The good ol' reductio-ab-London argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London