FORSKERNE "SPÅDDE EN ISTID PÅ 70-TALLET" MYTEN OPPKLART
Hele formålet med denne myten er å hevde at forskere ikke er til å stole på, at de vil si / hevde / forutsi hva som helst bare for å få navnet sitt i avisene, og at media faller for det hele tiden. De tok feil om istiden i 1970-årene, de tar feil nå om global oppvarming.
The whole purpose of this myth is to argue that researchers are not reliable. They'll say / claim / predict anything just to get their name in the newspapers and that the media is falling for it all the time. They were wrong about the ice age in the 1970s, they are now wrong with global warming.
On deniers bloggs you will find videos like this reposted and reposted:
The cooling trend from 1940- 1970 was the result of fine aerosol pollution, which reflected solar radiation back out into space (also known as "global dimming").
The myth stems originally from a 1971 Rasool and Schneider study, which was predicated on a quadrupling of aerosol emissions; this possible pathway NEVER HAPPENED.
Emissions actually went the opposite trajectory due to the establishment of the EPA and the Clean Water Act in 1970, the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer of 1985, the The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer of 1987 and the Clean Air Act of 1990.
"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then."
The primary hyping came from "pop-science" publications.
Her debunkes myten med harde fakta
Here are the hard facts:
A survey of the scientific literature has found that
between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling.
So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.
Gjenta etter meg:
En studie av den vitenskapelige litteraturen mellom 1965 og 1979,
viser at 44 fagfellevurderte papirer forutså oppvarming, 20 var nøytrale og bare 7 spådde cooling.
Så mens spådommene om cooling fikk mer medieoppmerksomhet, var flertallet av forskere enige om oppvarming selv da.
Here are the 7 papers on cooling. One of them is the Rasool and Schneider 1971 study which was was predicated on a quadrupling of aerosol emissions; this possible pathway NEVER HAPPENED.
Brian Dunning, Skeptoid tar opp tråden / explains:
"For me, the single most compelling time capsule showing what the scientific community believed in the 1970s is found in the National Academy of Science's 1977 publication Energy and Climate: Studies in Geophysics. Its ten 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.
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
- Scientists were finding answers to the puzzle of what caused ice ages in the past: variations in earth’s orbit.
- Scientists were gathering data from around the world to come up with global average temperatures, and they found that temperatures had been cooling since about the 1940s.
- Scientists were realizing that some of this cooling was due to increasing air pollution (soot and aerosols, tiny particles suspended in the air) which was decreasing the amount of solar energy entering the atmosphere.
- Scientists were also quantifying the “greenhouse effect” of another part of our increasing pollution: carbon dioxide (CO2), which should cause the climate to warm.
Medienes rolle og
Hvordan klimafornekterne utnytter og holder liv i myten: ved å vise til populær-magasin-artikler:
How deniers keeps the myth warm: By refering to pop magazine articles:
"When the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary discussion over climate change, it is most often in the form of citations not to the scientific literature, but to news media coverage. (This media hype was found in newspapers, magazines, books and on television). That is where US Senator James Inhofe turned for much of the evidence to support his argument in a Senate floor speech in 2003 (Inhofe 2003). Chief among his evidence was a frequently cited Newsweek story: "The Cooling World" (Gwynne 1975)."
Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed.
Lets debunk the "The Cooling World" article:
Denne saken fra Newsweek i 1975, av Peter Gwynne, er altså mye resirkulert i fornekterland.
This article, and much of the media coverage in its vein, overstated the level of scientific concern regarding on global cooling and its effects from that time period, a point graciously conceded by the author of the 1975 Newsweek article in a 2014 story he wrote for Inside Science.
Peter Gwynne, the man who wrote The Cooling world article, is rebutting his own story:
Mannen bak artikkelen sier altså tydelig i fra i 2014: "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong - It's time for deniers of human-caused global warming to stop using an old magazine story against climate scientists."
"In retrospect, I was over-enthusiastic in parts of my Newsweek article. Thus, I suggested a connection between the purported global cooling and increases in tornado activity that was unjustified by climate science. I also predicted a forthcoming impact of global cooling on the world’s food production that had scant research to back it.[...] Our climate is warming -- not cooling, as the original story suggested" Peter Gwynne 2014.
Newsweek selv debunker også historien:
Newsweek is also rebutting their own story:
"As calculated by the mathematician Milutin Milankovitch in the 1920s, these factors vary on interlocking cycles of around 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years, and if nothing else changed they would be certain to bring on a new Ice Age at some time. In the 1970s, there were scientists who thought this shift might be imminent; more recent data, according to William Connolley, a climate scientist at the British Antarctic Survey who has made a hobby of studying Ice Age predictions , suggest that it might be much farther off." [...] predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism. Astronomers have been warning for decades that life on Earth could be wiped out by a collision with a giant meteorite; it hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean that journalists have been dupes or alarmists for reporting this news.
I searched around on Time’s website and looked through all of the covers from the 1970s. I was shocked (shocked!) to find not a single cover with the promise of an in-depth, special report on the Coming Ice Age. What about this cover from December 1973 with Archie Bunker shivering in his chair entitled “The Big Freeze”? Nope, that’s about the Energy Crisis. Maybe this cover from January 1977, again entitled “The Big Freeze”? Nope, that’s about the weather. How about this one from December 1979, “The Cooling of America”? Again with the Energy Crisis.
"By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming.
Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember."
La også Time Magazine selv få oppklare klimafornekter-løgnen:
Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age.
A doctored TIME magazine cover warns of a coming ice age. But the reality remains that the world is warming, thanks chiefly to human action.
A doctored Time magazine cover which became a favorite myth in denier-land. The authentic cover is to the right:
En falsk forside som altså har blitt til en urban myth. Her er den falske forsiden til venstre og den ekte til høyre:
Here we see how a denier blog uses this fake Time cover to give the impression that researchers have predicted ice age in the 70's and warming 30 years later:
Her ser vi hvordan en fornekterblogg bruker dette falske Time-coveret til å skape et inntrykk av at forskerne har spådd istid på 70-tallet og oppvarming 30 år senere:
Grunnen til at fornektere må lage falske forsider? Time Magazine coverene på 70-tallet handlet faktisk IKKE om at verden skulle bli kjøligere.
La oss se nærmere på disse coverne. Her er andre eksempler på hvordan klimafornektere/tåkeleggerne misforstår/bevisst jukser og setter sammen bilder for å fordreie virkeligheten. Bilde nummer 1 og 3 omhandler kun lokale kalde vintre, og dette er jo hinsides ironisk; klimafornektere forstår fortsatt ikke at dette jo ER et tegn på global oppvarming, noe som Time-artikkelen til høyre er klar på (More signs of GW). Med andre ord så handler disse to artiklene om det motsatte av hva klimafornektere tror de handler om. I denne sammenhengen dog, skapes det et feilaktig inntrykk av at forskere har spådd istid - global oppvarming - istid. Som her i den Exxon-sponsete ekkokammer-klimaløgn-bloggen WattsUpWithThat.
The reason why deniers must make fake covers? The Time Magazine covers in the 70's were NOT really about a cooling climate.
Despite all their bluster, climate denial blogs still do not appear to understand the difference between weather and climate.
An example [of the] global cooling scare of the 70s.
Let's have a closer look at these covers. Here are examples of how the climate deniers / misunderstand / deliberately cheat and merge pictures to distort reality. Picture number 1 and 3 only deal with local cold winters, and this is beyond ironic; climate deniers still do not understand that this is indeed a sign of global warming, as the Time article on the right is even saying:More signs of global warming. (Everyone has heard of the expression "Its to cold to snow", warmer weather brings more moisture to the air and this is available to weather systems.) In other words, these two articles confirms the opposite of what climate deniers think they are about. In this context, however, it creates an erroneous impression that researchers have predicted ice age - global warming - ice age. Like here in the Heartland / Exxon-sponsored echo chamber climate denier blog WattsUpWithThat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/time-magazine-and-global-warming/
But again, these are NOT scientific journals, these are pop magazines. They'll pick the odd story most of the times. They will sensational their stories in order to sell more magazines. The vast majority of climate scientists predicted, as said, global warming already in the 70's. Slight uncertainty due to aerosols and air pollution caused some researchers to be in doubt. Here we see another version of the image collage:
Men igjen, dette er magaziner og ukeblader som kun omtaler lokalt vær. Som bedriver sensasjonsjournalistikk for å selge blader. Dette er IKKE vitenskapelige tidsskrifter som spår om fremtidens klimaendringer. De aller fleste klimaforskere spådde, som sagt, global oppvarming også på 70-tallet. Litt usikkerhet pga aerosoler og luftforurensing gjorde at enkelte forskere var usikre. Her ser vi en annen versjon av bildekollasjen:
Det første bildet (over) handler om olje/energi-krisen i 1973 og har følgelig heller ingen verdens ting med global oppvarming eller "forskerne spådde en istid på 70-tallet" å gjøre. Dette forhindrer selvsagt ikke klimafornekterne å misbruke coveret. Her er et typisk eksempel på hvordan fornekter-blogger misbruker slike forsider.
The first picture (above) is about the oil / energy crisis in 1973 and consequently has absolutely nothing to do with the scientists predicted cooling in the 70's claim. This obviously does not prevent the climate deniers from misusing the cover. Like in this denier blog.
Her ser vi igjen hvordan to bilder (over), som altså handler om energikriser, som har ingen verdens ting med "forskerne spådde en istid på 70-tallet" å gjøre, blir misbrukt for å fortelle en helt annen historie. Som her, i bloggen til den konservative politikeren Ron Paul. Du finner variasjoner over disse Time-coverne i hundrevis av klimafornekter-blogger. Også norske klimafornekter-steder pusher disse løgnhistoriene.
Here we see again how two images (above), which are about energy crises, and consequently has absolutely nothing to do with the "scientists predicted cooling in the 70's" claim, are misused to tell a completely different story. Like here, in the blog of conservative politician Ron Paul. You'll find variations over these Time covers in hundreds of climate denier blogs. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?58663-Ron-Paul-Doesn-t-Accept-Evolution&p=5739183&fref=gc
The effects and dangers of human made climate change was well known and understood by the US military and the president in the 1960s because they got their info from scientists, not pop magazines.
Fifty years ago: The White House knew all about climate change
Fifty years ago, on November 5, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s White House released “Restoring the Quality of our Environment”, a report that described the impacts of climate change, and foretold dramatic Antarctic ice sheet loss, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.
That 1965 White House report stated:
To the Congress of the United States:
"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. "
Entire regional airsheds, crop plant environments, and river basins are heavy with noxious materials. Motor vehicles and home heating plants, municipal dumps and factories continually hurl pollutants into the air we breathe. Each day almost 50,000 tons of unpleasant, and sometimes poisonous, sulfur dioxide are added to the atmosphere, and our automobiles produce almost 300,000 tons of other pollutants."
Oh the irony. The only ones to predict cooling and ice age are.............contrarians and climate deniers...LOLOLOL.