Balanced on the Knife Edge
OK, obviously I am not going to be able to stop posting on climate. TigerHawk has a nice article on the global cooling panic from the April
28, 1975 issue of Newsweek.
However, rather than highlight the fact that climatologists have
reversed themselves on cooling vs. warming, because that sometimes
happens in science, I want to highlight what they described as the
effects of global cooling:
They begin
by noting the slight drop in over-all temperature that produces large numbers
of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate
areas. The stagnant air produced in this
way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods,
extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature
increases "“ all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
So
cooling will cause more droughts, floods, extreme weather, and even
local temperature increases. And we have been told constantly that
warming will
cause more droughts, floods, extreme weather, and even local
temperature decreases. So does this mean that we are currently
balanced on the knife edge of the perfect climate, and any change
cooler or warmer will make it worse? Or could it be that the
weather-disaster-hype-machine has a defined playbook and these are its
elements?
Larry Sheldon:
"Or could it be that the weather-disaster-hype-machine has a defined playbook and these are its elements?"
To quote a famous philosopher (whose name escapes me at the moment:
"MMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmCooould beeee!"
August 16, 2007, 10:59 amJames Barlow:
A Newsweek cover story is not equivalent to a peer-reviewed paper, so although the equivalent millenarian prophecy is on display, it's not quite the evidence of a general reversal of the views of climatologists. The media response on the other hand is, as you say, using the same playbook.
RealClimate et al used to state that there were never any journal articles on the subject of "Global Cooling". I've never found anything to refute this.
I'm pretty much in agreement with your on this subject - no argument with the basic science of global warming, nor with the proposition that a proportion of it is anthropogenic. But there's still a big gap from that position to stifling economic growth; if anything the best response is to recognise that adverse climate events such as storms and floods have the most impact on the poorest nations and seek to increase their economic development.
"Cut Trade Tariffs to Stop Climate Change" - I wonder if that slogan would make anyone's head explode?
[http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.html]
August 16, 2007, 11:23 amALLAN AMES:
I'll know they're serious when they begin urging a shift to nuclear power. I'm still listening.
August 16, 2007, 11:49 amdearieme:
I can't be the first to have thought of this joke, but shall we all just refer to it in future as "Goebbels Warning"?
August 16, 2007, 3:14 pmWalter E. Wallis, P.E.:
I keep demanding that, at a minimum, the warmies, using their own program, demionstrate the changed projection if every one of their recommendations is applied.
August 16, 2007, 5:23 pmGreg:
Hi All,
You might want to check this pdf out. It's a history of the media coverage of warming/cooling/warming/cooling/warming.
here it is
August 17, 2007, 12:40 am