The 1970s Cooling Scare Was Real
July 2, 2022
By Paul Homewood
I’ve run this video before, but it’s worth repeating:
21 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Mikehig on The madness of Labour’s… foxbarn on Beatrice’s Missing Outpu… Gamecock on The madness of Labour’s… Mike Jackson on The madness of Labour’s… Beagle on How Will Labour Replace North… JW on How Will Labour Replace North… David Tallboys on Seeing Red On Climate HotScot on Seeing Red On Climate In The Real World on How Will Labour Replace North… frankobaysio on How Will Labour Replace North…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Whereas this Met Office ‘study’ is ridiculous.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2022/climate-change-slashing-odds-of-record-western-european-june-temperatures
The never ending march of the “Experts”.
Particularly those carefully selected activist “Experts” who comprise the totality of “Settled Science” promoted by arts-grad, virtue signalling politicians, to justify increasing control of the plebs and levying ever increasing stealth taxes.
Policy based evidence making at its finest.
In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen, the initiator of the CO2 scare in the late 80’s, put out a paper showing a lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature and confirmed the 70’s cooling.
Click to access hansen81a.pdf
“The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3 .5°C for doubling of the C02 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm . The major difficulty in accepting the theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic C02 increase. In fact, the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970, a time of rapid C02 build up. In addition, recent claims that climate models over-estimate the impact of radiative perturbations by an order of magnitude, have raised the issue of whether the greenhouse effect is well understood. “
Thanks for the link, Dennis, a very interesting and important paper. Probably as good as any of the hyper-computer models in that the assumptions underpinning them are no better now than they were back in 1980. The ECS effect on the models and allowances for humidity that led to the unprovable “feedback mechanism” are also laid bare.
In summary, I’d say that this was a good bit of science that has been used to create some of the worst ever science.
Why don’t people accept that our abilities to predict the future using developments of the crude algebras developed by Continental mathematicians in the 18th century, does not exist? As I have pointed out previously, rather than solve the very real mathematical problems raised by Newton in his ‘Principia Mathematica’ of 1686, they developed linear algebraic methods in which they thought the problems did not exist. Sadly, that viewpoint is horribly wrong – what they developed is little better than software. You could ask passengers on a Boeing 737 Max 8 what their experience of software was…..
Exactly so Merv. Perfectly right.
The totally computer dependent Met Office et al “deduction” forecasters have completely lost contact with Newtonian “induction” observation based reality.
Forget the next 25 years: late yesterday afternoon they forecast the weather at Silverstone would be heavy rain. Actually, so far, it has been windy but pleasant. Which was wrong: the forecast or the weather!
The real world has provided no hard evidence of CO2 actually causing heating. All we have is a very weak correlation effect of strongly increasing CO2 and slight temp rise which is as relevant as the increase in the European stork population after WW2 paralleled the increase in human birth rate proving storks brought the babies.
This is the famous “correlation fallacy” which our environment scholars seem to have no knowledge of. Because two things happen simultaneously does prove cause and effect.
Every time I wear my blue sports jacket it rains. Should I stop wearing it during Wimbledon week?
…. typo … “does NOT prove cause and effect.
Sorry.
Have a look at reports of yesterday’s opening time trial in this year’s Tour de France. Rain forecast for late afternoon. Leading triallists opted to go early. Rain arrived 2pm!! Oops.
Weather does not follow the dictates of forecasters. Climate even less!
Fully agree Malcolm, but science has slipped into the slovenly habit of proposing ‘theories’ and then carrying out experiments to ‘prove’ them. Rather than investigating phenomena and then forming theories about what it teaches us. This was the Newtonian method successfully used by John Harrison. This dichotomy between theory and practical evidence goes back to the Ancient Greeks and it reduces science to the certainties of a third rate religion. Your Quaker forebears had the certainty borne of a firmly held morality – hence they could put money to work and whip its back raw – people knew they could be trusted and would deliver. Climate modellers seem to have a singular lack of moral integrity.
Ah William M Connolley, (of PCF08 fame) a man so utterly despicable that even Wikipedia banned him in the end (probably). He really should be put in front of a jury for crimes against science or even just plain fraud.
I quote from a web page giving reasons for not trusting Wikipedia – number 7 reads:.
” 7. Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority.
Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve. For example, beginning in 2003, U.K. scientist William Connolley became a Web site administrator and subsequently wrote or rewrote more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles supporting the concept of climate change and global warming. More importantly, he used his authority to ban more than 2,000 contributors with opposing viewpoints from making further contributions.
According to The Financial Post, when Connolley was through editing, “The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.” Connolley has since been stripped of authority at Wikipedia, but one blogger believes he continues to post.”
http://2day.sweetsearch.com/the-top-10-reasons-students-cannot-cite-or-rely-on-wikipedia/
If anyone wants to send him a “friendly” message (I already have)
https://www.facebook.com/malaysianhoneybadger/friends
William Connelley is an utterly despicable man He reminds me of the IRD’s Hugh Peter Mooney . However , it must be remembered this odious character ,is a product of Britains education institutions . and scientific agencies …..He worked as a climate modeler with the British Antarctic Survey …….He could easily land a job with MI5 , 77 Brigade or Bellingcat
Plus one – ‘cos I noticed his name there and was about to post.
Most interesting
I recently bought a copy of the book “A Chilling Scientific Forecast of a New Ice Age” by Sir Fred Hoyle FRS, published in 1981, so yes it was certainly credible.
I was studying climatology as a key element of my undergraduate degree in the mid 1970s. All the key texts and papers we referred to picked up the very notable cooling from a peak warmth at the end of the 1950s and the consensus was that we were likely coming to the end of an interglacial, with cooler conditions, or even start of a new ice age a possibility.
I was at uni in Glasgow inthe late 60s early 70s and the summers were quite cold. Never got into the 70s and that was Fahrenheit.
I was taken by the claim – in the video – that the burning of FF caused too many particulate emissions which blocked out the sun causing cooling.
Strange how science can change to say the opposite.
The motor vehicle industry gets the blame either way.
As I recall, the cooling was put down to CO2, and doomsday forecasts of an imminent ice-age abounded. This was the first time CO2 had been blamed for perceived climate change since Callenders attempts in the 1930s.
This hypothesis suddenly reversed in the 1980s / 90s and CO2 became a “heating” gas: the beauty of both hypotheses is that neither can be proven or disproved, so fit Bookers fear-campaign criteria perfectly.
The 1970’s had the strongest solar wind states of the space age since 1964, which drove a much colder AMO and multi-year La Nina conditions (via positive North Atlantic Oscillation regimes), and the colder sea surface temperatures increase low cloud cover which reduces sunshine hours. Weaker solar wind states since 1995 have driven a warmer AMO via negative NAO regimes.
Solar plasma temperature and pressure:
.
Aerosols, England engulfed in volcanic fumes and dust from the Laki eruption in 1783, with the 4th hottest July in CET. Moscow 2010 extreme summer heatwave while the city chokes in forest fire smoke, rather like large areas of western Europe in 1540. The hottest English Easter on record in 2011, with very heavy levels of industrial air pollution which had drifted over from Europe, the same for the record maximum temperatures around 24-27 February 2019 in England, heavy air pollution again. Also the record high in Syracuse,Sicily, that fell by about 8°C later in the afternoon when smoke from a nearby fire had cleared.