Despite what NCDC’s Thomas Peterson, Wikiwrangler William Connolley, and John Fleck would like you to believe as a “myth” (The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus), there was in fact serious consideration of the global cooling issue in the 1970’s thanks to this 1974 document from the CIA. – Anthony
The CIA Report and the Warning from Wisconsin
Guest post by David Archibald
In August, 1974, the Office of Research and Development of the Central Intelligence Agency produced a report entitled “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems” – available online at: http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf Some interesting bits of the report follow:
“The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600- 1850) – an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.
Climate has not been a prime consideration of intelligence analysis because, until recently, it has not caused any significant perturbations to the status of major nations. This is so because during 50 of the last 60 years the Earth has, on the average, enjoyed the best agricultural climate since the eleventh century. An early twentieth century world food surplus hindered US efforts to maintain and equalise farm production and incomes.”
“The University of Wisconsin was the first accredited academic center to forecast that a major global climatic change was underway. Their analysis of the Icelandic temperature data, which they contend has historically been a bellwether for northern hemisphere climatic conditions, indicated that the world was returning to the type of climate which prevailed during the first part of the last century.” “Their “Food for Thought” chart (Figure 7) conveys some idea of the enormity of the problem and the precarious state in which most of the world’s nations could find themselves if the Wisconsin forecast is correct.”
CIA Report 1974, Figure 7
The x axis shows annual temperature in centigrade. The y axis is persons per hectare of arable land.
With respect to Figure 7, the CIA report states “As an example, Europe presently, with an annual mean temperature of 12°C (about 53°F), supports three persons per arable hectare. If, however, the temperature declines 1°C only a little over two persons per hectare could be supported and more than 20 percent of the population could be supported and more than 20 percent of the population could not be fed from domestic sources. China now supports over seven persons per arable hectare; a shift of 1°C would mean it could only support four persons per hectare – a drop of over 43 percent.
A unique aspect of the Wisconsin analysis was their estimate of the duration of this climatic change. An analysis by Dr J.E.Kutzbach (Wisconsin) on the rate of climate changes during the preceding 1,600 years indicates an ominous consistency in the rate of (sic) which the change takes place. The maximum temperature drop normally occurred within 40 years of inception. The earliest return occurred within 70 years (Figure 8). The longest period noted was 180 years.”
CIA Report 1974, Figure 8
The CIA Report warning on the impact of cooling on the stability of nations is supported by a 2007 study by Zhang et al:
“We show that long-term fluctuations of war frequency and population changes followed the cycles of temperature change. Further analyses show that cooling impeded agricultural production, which brought about a series of serious social problems, including price inflation, then successively war outbreak, famine, and population decline successively. The findings suggest that worldwide and synchronistic war–peace, population, and price cycles in recent centuries have been driven mainly by long-term climate change.
We studied a long span of Chinese history and found that the number of war outbreaks and population collapses in China is significantly correlated with Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature variations and that all of the periods of nationwide unrest, population collapse, and dynastic change occurred in the cold phases of this period.”
The CIA Report of 1974 drew heavily on the work of Professor Kutzbach of the University of Wisconsin, who continues to warn of the danger posed by gobal cooling. Professor Kutzbach is a co-author of a study that modelled the effect of a 3.1°C cooler climate (Phillipon-Berthier et al 2010). The premise of the study is that using a carbon dioxide concentration of 240 ppm based on typical values reached during the latter stage of previous interglacials, the climate would 3.14°K cooler than it currently is. Of that cooling, 0.45°K is attributed to vegetation effects and the balance of 2.69°K is due to the carbon dioxide level being 150 ppm less than it is currently. The 2.69°K figure is an obvious and deliberate overstatement. Based on the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide, the true heating differential between 240 ppm and 390 ppm is 0.32°K, as shown by this figure:
Figure 3: The logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide
In a world in which even papers in solar physics have to genuflect to global warming in order to get published, it is likely that this overstatement was necessary to get this paper published. Viewed in that light, it seems that the authors wanted to warn the world of the effects of a 3.0°C-odd cooling and the only way they could get the paper past the censors was to concoct a story based on carbon dioxide levels in previous interglacials. A 3.0°C cooling is very similar to what Libby and Pandolfi 1979 warned of, and what is predicted from the length of Solar Cycle 25 as determined by Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram, as shown in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/solar-cycle-24-length-and-its-consequences/
So what did the study find? Philippon-Berthier and colleagues calculated that as a result of the colder and drier conditions, along with lower levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (a plant fertilizer), terrestrial photosynthesis would decline by 39% and leaf area would decline by 30%. In the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, forest cover would decline by 60% and grassland area would decline by 17%. In the high latitudes, the area of boreal forests would drop by 69% while the area of polar desert would increase by 286%. And in the Tropics, grass area would decline by 3%, forest area by 15%, and the area of bare ground would increase by 344%.
Adding back the effect of current higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on plant growth, the decline in terrestrial photosynthesis would be about 25% rather than the calculated 39%. That is likely to be good estimate of the decline in food production, all things being equal, that humanity has in prospect over the next twenty-five years as solar-driven cooling continues per the Libby and Pandolfi and green corona emissions-derived forecasts.
Figure 4: Total grass (top) and tree (bottom) differences (percentages) from current climate conditions with a 3.1°K cooling (source: Philippon-Berthier et al., 2010).
References
CIA 1974, A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems
Libby, L.M. and Pandolfi, L.J. 1979, Tree Thermometers and Commodities: Historic Climate Indicators, Environment International Vol 2, pp 317-333
Philippon-Berthier, G., et al., 2010. Role of plant physiology and dynamic vegetation feedbacks in the climate response to low GHG concentrations typical of the late stages of previous interglacials. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L08705, doi:10.1029/2010GL042905.
Peterson, T.C., et al. (2008): The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89, 9, 1325-1337, doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great stuff. Just love Connolley’s selective memory.
He is one one of the main reasons I instruct my students not to use Wikipedia.
An interesting article posted a few days before Climategate I.
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/letter/
Perhaps this is a clue to the start of the hoax.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
I remember the global cooling hysteria from the 70s; my feeling is that the global warming… er…. “climate change” movement will look even sillier in just a few years.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/hansen-cheating-in-iceland/
From report about University of Wisconson:”Their analysis of the Icelandic temperature data, which they contend has historically been a bellwether for northern hemisphere climatic conditions, indicated that the world was returning to the type of climate which prevailed during the first part of the last century.”
LInk above shows how Hansen has been fiddling with the Icelandic temperature record. He is trying to do away with the temperature decline from ’40’s to mid 70’s.
check this out about global cooling
http://www.asianetindia.com/whats-hot/global-cooling-global-warming_296357.html
Not to worry. The Germans (and my fellow Badger alumni) will solve the problem by simply putting more of those proper gases into the atmosphere –
Global cooling rattles food chain
T wires: Friday, March 13, 2009
WASHINGTON — Changing eating patterns linked to global cooling are altering the food chain in Wisconsin and may lead to further increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The most basic food, bratwurst, is increasing north of the Illinois border reaching toward Canada, researchers report in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
At the same time, populations of indigenous Germans, which require a colder climate, have increased sharply in that region.
“We’re showing for the first time that there is an ongoing change of the brat concentration and composition along the land mass west of Lake Michigan that is associated with a long-term climate modification. These foodstuff changes may explain in part the observed increase of some Wisconsinite populations,” Marty Monte-Hogg, a marine scientist at Rutters University, said in a statement.
Andy Monhan, a polar expert at the NCAR in Boulder, Colo., said the report ties all the implications of global cooling together in a biological chain of events. “A direct cause-and-effect relationship of the team’s findings is still unproven, Monte-Hogg said, but it’s clear that the changes in brat, beer and human distribution do resemble a chain reaction.”
The change reflects shifting patterns of Germans, beer/brat availability and eating, the report said.
A separate report in the same edition of Science raises the possibility that new eating patterns could result in more outpouring of unfathomable gases in the region, which would include release of methane and stored carbon dioxide, potentially stabilizing global weather to the point of nonexistence.
“The faster the food chain turns over the higher volumes, the more out gassing will transpire, releasing ever higher amounts of CH4 and CO2 to the atmosphere,” said Bob Andersen, a geochemist at Colombia University’s Earth Observatory. “It’s this rate of overturning that regulates CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Information from the A. Press and a Chronicle was used in this report.
I love that last statement: “It’s this rate of overturning that regulates CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Wisconsin! Out if front – again!
(Do I need to say – /sarc?)
This was also covered by Time Magazine in 1974: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
One of my favorite lines from the article was (paraphrasing) “Earth temperatures continue to fall and no one is doing anything about it!”
There was no consensus then, as there is no consensus now. There was just the same few shrill type voices who caught the ear of the media, and some politicians. It never caught fire though, because unlike today, there was no agenda or “grand plan” driving it.
Peterson, Connolley, and John Fleck were/are exactly correct. There was no scientific consensus of global cooling in the 1970s – They documented that fact indisputably. This CIA report is based largely on understanding natural climate cycles. There is no consideration on anthropogenic impact on the climate, other than to muse “unless man can alter the climate”. From a macro view, the CIA is correctly engaged in trying to understand the impact of climate on national security and on international social factor and strain on social fabrics. Other than being somewhat interesting, there is no “selective memory” or “inconvenient truth” implication. It’s disappointing to read some of the reader comments. Where’s the critical thinking … the skepticism?
Whilst reading this my subconscious sent up a flag. “Nightime temperatures are warming faster than daytime temperatutres.” There is something wrong with that statement. If there is x amount of heat applied during the day and the starting point in the morning is higher then the daytime temperature will be higher by the same amount.
Despite the CO2-doubling meme being mentioned, no gas of any kind can warm the surface. backradiation is not a factor, and the upper troposphere that is supposed to be heating the surface would have to be around 1500 deg C to heat the surface with the power they claim. In fact, that part of the atmosphere has not warmed as they say it has to, but it has been cooling aw well as drying in recent years.
The trick is that CO2 trapped in a vessel is not the same as CO2 in the atmosphere with all of its convection and lapse rate effects. It is laughable to think that a trace gas with all of its interactions with other gases would have the effect they claim. In the real world, it is more likely that CO2 and water vapor are a wash ding the day but, in effect, serve to cool the atmosphere during the night as they convert heat energy to IR which is then lost to space.
It’s gravity that determines the base temperature of a planet, the solar input that tops that up, and the ocean currents that distribute and mellow the changes.
omnologos says:
May 25, 2012 at 3:17 am
If I may add…the unearthing of this CIA report is due to Yours Truly…..
____________________________
Thank You. Thank You.
I have used that CIA document as a “SHUT UP” more than once for the propagandists who are busy trying to hide the global cooling scare of the seventies.
It is great to have this material found and presented in this manner. Much thanks to all the folks that are doing this work. I did much the same in the mid-1970s and provided context** to an interdisciplinary seminar at the local university.
_____
**North America is uniquely suited to adapt to climate changes of the type noted in the cooling/warming swings. Temperature varies in a north-to-south spatial pattern while moisture varies in an east-to-west pattern. Very generalized, of course. At that time the USSR was the West’s major rival (much in the news) and so, their frequent problems with growing wheat were reported in US & Canadian articles. While the centrally planned economy can take the blame for a lot of the problems, the differences in the bands of temp/precip were (and are still) a significant contribution. In North America these bands cross each other, in Asia they are more parallel. The point being that if cooling does occur North American agriculture will adapt more easily than many other places. Individual farms might need help to do this rapidly but in some cases it will be as simple as planting wheat rather than corn (or some other similar adjustment). Freedom, flexibility, and wealth are also major advantages found in Canada and the USA.
John@EF says:
May 25, 2012 at 8:05 am
“Peterson, Connolley, and John Fleck were/are exactly correct. There was no scientific consensus of global cooling in the 1970s – They documented that fact indisputably. ”
As we disagree with your side on CO2-CAGW, we can then agree that there is no consensus now.
Now give back the funding and the solar/wind power subsidies and we’re even.
Oh.
I forget. We get the right to call the warmists mentally ill; like the warmists call us mentally ill.
Agreed?
John@EF says (May 25, 2012 at 8:05 am) says….
—
The point is that many climate scientists in the 70s extrapolated the mid-century temperature decline and predicted doom. They were wrong. Whereas now many cli…. oh well, you get the gist.
John@EF says:
May 25, 2012 at 8:05 am
Peterson, Connolley, and John Fleck were/are exactly correct. There was no scientific consensus of global cooling in the 1970s –
_______________
You missed the point of what Connelley, et al were saying.
Connelley and friends tried to make the whole “Global Cooling” discussion disappear, as if there had only been a few isolated instances of reports of cooling, when in fact, we were bombarded with scary stories.
Historical revision doesn’t work so well when enough people are still alive to remember what actually happened and can document the facts- regardless of the Stalinesque tactics to make them disappear.
Here’s an unrepentant prophet from the 1970’s
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/next-ice-age/#more-782
I remember well most of this 70’s foolishness about cooling and the pending ice age. In those days I lived in western Labrador. We all thought the cold sayers were nuts and wimps too. Hum, about that we not think of the warmers. The question is a circle or a wave. Anyone want to fund this consultant to find out which?
To: John at EF 8:05 am
lighten up, man, we are just having fun at the expense of the warmistas.
Besides, I was out of college and teaching science in the ’70s, I remember it all… Just another “we are all going to hell in a handbasket” alarmism.
Re world food supply, the USDA (US Dept of Agriculture) publishes data on food grains. See link.
Page WASDE – 506 – 8 shows world ending stocks (stored grains). The final column, Ending Stocks of 457.87 divided by Output of 2197.05 gives 0.208, or barely 20 percent.
Twenty percent of 12 months is 2.4 months; leading to the grim conclusion that, as citizens of the planet, we are in a world of hurt. We can ill afford one bad harvest, let alone multiple ones.
http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.pdf
A serious cold period would greatly impact the inland areas of Eurasia, most particularly those nations which today make up the anti Western Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Not unlike what transpired from the 5th through 8th centuries, the loss of arable land and general stress of a colder and drier climate would make the peoples of those lands seek better places to live and grow crops. It would not be the sort of global bloc power play type of conflict envisaged during the latter half of the 20th century it would be more on par with the vast movements of Huns, Mongols and other similar peoples during the Age of Migrations. Except this time around, there are WMD. The CIA no doubt studied this aspect of things. I hope they still are doing so.
Speaking of alarms, lets look at a few: global warming, global cooling, the population bomb, the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, the dooms day bomb, water pollution, air pollution, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, Nostradamus and 2000, 2012 and the Mayan calendar… come on guys, list the hundred I have left out. Where would the news media be without some “Life as we know it is ending.” story.
Lighten up, have some fun, for tomorrow we may die… or not.
John@EF:
At May 25, 2012 at 8:05 am you assert:
Really? They did that?
I can understand how one could “document” a scientific consensus.
But I fail to understand how it is possible to “document” the absence of a scientific consensus unless one wants to claim that finding some documents which dispute the consensus is proof that the consensus does not exist.
And if you want to make that claim then the absence of a consensus on AGW is documented “indisputably” by the existence of WUWT.
Richard
H.R. says:
May 25, 2012 at 4:48 am
I didn’t see where modern farm yields per area of cultivation are compared to the yields of the past though that may be somewhere in the studies that were referenced.
___________________________
You must not have read any of my comments for the last couple of years. Below is a quicky history of crop yield in the USA. We grow 25% of the world’s grain much of which is exported.
So Mr Archibald’s concern is certainly a very valid one.
I would also like to point out that increase in crop yields from GMO crops is not really supported.
With that myth exploded we can then look at the crop yields per acre in the USA vs the advances in agriculture.
One Study shows wheat fields suck CO2 down to ~300 ppm at 2 meters above the field. Wheat is a C3 plant and does not have the increased and more efficient net photosynthesis of C4 plants.
Graph of CO2 from Mauna Loa 1958 to 2005: http://www.mongabay.com/images/2006/graphs/co2_mauna_loa.jpg
From that graph and the US census data showing the export of US manufacturing starting in 1970 one could make a case that the increased crop yield is at least in part due to the increase in CO2 from levels of about 315 ppm in 1958. and the leveling off since 1975 is due to the export of CO2 producing industries.
Think I can get a grant for my study? (snicker)
I have finished my tables with the 45th weather station
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
and conclude
\
since 1994/1995 earth is in a global cooling state,
now aproximating 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C or K per annum
I cannot yet say how long the cooling is going to last
– give me some more time and we will figure that one out too –