The CIA documents the global cooling research of the 1970’s

Seal of the C.I.A. - Central Intelligence Agen...
Seal of the C.I.A. – Central Intelligence Agency of the United States Government (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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.”

clip_image002

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.”

clip_image004

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:

clip_image006

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.

clip_image007

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

96 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 25, 2012 11:21 pm

LazyTeenager says:
May 25, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Serious consideration being given is not the same a scientific consensus.

The term scientific consensus is an oxymoron. Consensus is a political concept — it is belief-based. You can have a consensus among scientists, such as “another glaciation is probable within the next twenty years,” but that doesn’t make it a scientific consensus — because there is no such thing as a scientific consensus.
The CIA is in the business of assessing security threats. So if someone says little green men are going to invade, they will likely look into it and produce an assessment.
And if enough influential scientists in governmental agencies say that global cooling is imminent and is a potential threat, the CIA will definitely look into it and produce an assessment.
Sorry guys. Yet another logic fail.
You’re projecting. The only consistent logic fails in these threads are yours.

Julian Braggins
May 25, 2012 11:55 pm

DocWat says:
May 25, 2012 at 9:58 am
. 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.
———————————————————
Too true Doc, and the real ones don’t get much coverage in the mainstream press. See rensedotcom for the “sticky” posts on Fukushima. It makes the CO2 debate seem trivial.
Not ‘turtles all the way down’, just idiots.

John McLachlan
May 26, 2012 8:49 pm

There were a number of techno-thrillers describing global war between the superpowers, caused by the coming ice-age.
I remember one, which referred to the existence of a land border between the USSR and Alaska, caused by freezing of the Bering Straight. It postulated that superpower strength would be decided by the number of tracked vehicles, rather than strategic missiles possessed. There were also several science fiction stories set in the future ice age. This just reflected that the assumed imminent ice-age, was respectable, mainstream “concensus”, though it was never described as such.

izen
May 27, 2012 1:16 am

There is no science in the CIA report.
It is like the ‘Impacts’ section of an IPCC report, speculating on the effects of disruption to the agricultural systems.
But it lacks any explanation of the cooling event event causing those impacts beyond a bit of vague hand-waving at the Lamb type of statistical pattern matching.
If you want to read speculations on what would happen IF climate cooling occurred then the CIA report may be a good source.
But it provides no scientific justification for the initial assumption of cooling – that is taken as a ‘given’ for this report.
You would need to look at the NAS report on the science to asses whether this a priori assumption by the CIA report that cooling would happen was a scientifically justified position. The 1975 NAS report explicitly states that prediction of the future climate is not yet possible and advocates various lines of research to improve our knowledge. Especially the impact of aerosols and rising CO2 levels that were identified as a possible cause of cooling or warming….
The Clean Air Act and other anti-pollution measures reduced the aerosol cooling…..

richardscourtney
May 27, 2012 6:08 am

izen:
In your post at May 27, 2012 at 1:16 am you lie;

There is no science in the CIA report.

The report cites and quotes much “science” with 4 pages of references and particular emphasis on the work of Kutzbach. Indeed, the above article includes a link to the actual report; i.e.
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
so anybody can check that you have lied.
The remainder of your post – except for its final sentence – is untrue because it is based on your lie.
Your final sentence says;

The Clean Air Act and other anti-pollution measures reduced the aerosol cooling…..

And that is also untrue.
Richard

John@EF
May 27, 2012 9:11 am

John McLachlan said May 26, 2012 at 8:49 pm:
“There were also several science fiction stories set in the future ice age. This just reflected that the assumed imminent ice-age, was respectable, mainstream “concensus”, though it was never described as such.”
======
Science fiction stories? Respectable? Consensus? What you’re describing is a media driven social meme; they jumped on a story line that could be hyped to boost the bottom-line. The preponderance of actual climate science study of the time was already pointing to concerns of anthropogenic driven warming, not cooling. Again, the CIA report and its selective references didn’t even consider anthropogenic factors, a fact that richardcourtney also seems oblivious to.

May 27, 2012 9:12 am

izen says
If you want to read speculations on what would happen IF climate cooling occurred…..
Henry says
not IF…IT IS happening already!!
on the maxima we are dropping now by about 0.2 degrees K per annum
(correlation coefficient for the relationship: change in degrees K per annum versus time itself is 0.997 , I think you can bet on that)
on the means we could be dropping this year by about 0.1 degree K
(correlation coefficient for the relationship: change in degrees K per annum versus time itself is ca. 0.95 )
do the stats and the maths
it’s easy
come back to me with what you get…..
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

richardscourtney
May 27, 2012 10:31 am

John@EF:
Team Troll really is busy today. For example, at May 27, 2012 at 9:11 am you say;
“Again, the CIA report and its selective references didn’t even consider anthropogenic factors, a fact that richardcourtney also seems oblivious to.”
Say what!?
I responded to izen who claimed “There is no science in the CIA report”. There is, as I explained.
Of course the references in the CIA report are “selective”. That report selects references which pertain to climate change and not – for example – references on the intestinal fortitude of dung beetles.
Read the CIA report. It says – repeatedly – that a cooling trend exists and “the current trend is indeed a long-term reality”.
What have “anthropogenic factors” got to do with that?
Furthermore, izen introduced mention of an “anthropogenic effect” when he made a false assertion about “aerosol cooling”. I refuted izen’s false assertion.
If the CIA report had asserted the cooling trend was a result of that “anthropogenic effect” then I would have quoted it and discussed it as part of the “science” in the CIA report – which izen said did not exist – when I was refuting his assertion about “aerosol cooling” (regular WUWT readers know I would have done that).
So, I am at a loss to understand how anybody could honestly think I was “oblivious” to the fact that the CIA report does not mention an “anthropogenic affect”.
Your comment tells much about you and nothing about anything else.
Richard

May 27, 2012 2:09 pm

John@EF says:
May 27, 2012 at 9:11 am
Science fiction stories? Respectable? Consensus? What you’re describing is a media driven social meme; they jumped on a story line that could be hyped to boost the bottom-line.

Exactly as the AGW hypothesis is being hyped today, and using the exact same argument. Interesting cycle…
The preponderance of actual climate science study of the time was already pointing to concerns of anthropogenic driven warming, not cooling. Again, the CIA report and its selective references didn’t even consider anthropogenic factors, a fact that richardcourtney also seems oblivious to.
“Climate science” per se didn’t exist in the ’70s, and the focus was almost entirely on the *cooling*. The only “anthropogenic” factors scientists were concerned with were lead additives in gasoline and particulates from industrial exhaust stacks — I used to fly DEP reps around taking direct air samples, and they were only interested in particulates.

John@EF
May 27, 2012 3:56 pm

Bill Tuttle says:
May 27, 2012 at 2:09 pm
“”Climate science” per se didn’t exist in the ’70s, and the focus was almost entirely on the *cooling*. The only “anthropogenic” factors scientists were concerned with were lead additives in gasoline and particulates from industrial exhaust stacks …”
====
Bill, At the beginning of his commentary, above, Anthony Watts posted a link to the AMS report published in September 2008. You may wish to read it. It’s only 13 pages.

Gail Combs
May 27, 2012 4:30 pm

clipe says:
May 25, 2012 at 6:10 pm
“it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.”
_________________________
There is absolutely nothing wrong with providing a product or service to others for a “profit” That “profit” is actually payment for your labor or interest on the loan of your wealth. A good businessman makes sure he is turning enough profit so that he can stay in business, improve his business and if he is smart he strives to give good quality and fair value so he gets repeat business. This is why Anti-monopoly regulation is necessary. To make the system work you need a variety of both buyers and sellers or the balance of power mucks up the system.
Neo-Corporatism, the collusion between large corporations and government, kills captalism by using regulations to kill off the competition and raise the bar so high everyday people can not hope to start their own business. Socialists see something wrong and support more and more government regulation never realizing that the regulation just make matters worse and worse.
In the 1960’s anyone could start a small business with relative ease, child-care, house cleaning, laundry & ironing, lawn care, farming, mechanic… all were available to people with a high school education. You did not need liability insurance or an accountant. Now there are very very few simple businesses left that do not require a lawyer and an accountant to untangle the government red tape.

izen
May 27, 2012 5:23 pm

@- Richard Courtney
“The report cites and quotes much “science” with 4 pages of references and particular emphasis on the work of Kutzbach.”
You are right, I am mistaken…but correcting That mistake just helps my case . I had read it already but had not counted what science there is as there is no scientific analysis of what the future climate might be, just the a priori assumption that cooling could continue into glacial conditions.
Unless as is mentioned –
“Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate {the northern hemisphere} will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow……”
{looks like we modified it!}
There are two bits of science in the paper, first a basic description of the Earth surface energy balance, ironically they use Langleys as the unit of energy. This contains a description of how the surface is warmed which some here might find controversial…-
“The surface, then, has two sources of energy. It gains 47 percent in visual-to-thermal energy transformation and 78 percent in back radiation.”
The second bit of science is Kutzbach’s contribution on the REGIONAL changes in climate that occurr when there is global cooling {or warming}. As the paper correctly identifies the big factor is the position of the tropical convergence zones. The latitude at which the main convective Hadley cells driven by equatorial heating descend back to the surface.
Of course since 1974 those Hadley cells have moved poleward, not as discussed in the paper towards the equator. So the band of aridity that creates the Sahara and SW US deserts is moving north….
As it happens the very scientist you mention that is quoted in this paper has continued work on regional climate change. Here is a up-to-date take on what Kutzbach thinks will happen now. Things have changes since that CIA document was written. {grin}
http://www.geography.wisc.edu/faculty/williams/lab/pubs/kutzbachetal2005grl.pdf
Simulations from eight climate models and two greenhouse gas emission scenarios are used to investigate changes in the hydrologic budget of the Great Lakes region of North America and the links to large-scale hemispheric/ global changes. The ensemble average simulations indicate that increased net moisture (increased P-E) for the Great Lakes area is associated with a general increase in poleward moisture transport, which in turn is highly correlated with the sensitivity of each climate model to greenhouse-gas induced warming as measured by the global average increase of temperature.
{shorter version- when the Great Lakes get warmer the increased rainfall offsets the increased evaporation. They wont dry up}

May 27, 2012 10:46 pm

John@EF says:
May 27, 2012 at 3:56 pm
A me, May 27, 2012 at 2:09 pm: “”Climate science” per se didn’t exist in the ’70s, and the focus was almost entirely on the *cooling*. The only “anthropogenic” factors scientists were concerned with were lead additives in gasoline and particulates from industrial exhaust stacks …”
====
Bill, At the beginning of his commentary, above, Anthony Watts posted a link to the AMS report published in September 2008. You may wish to read it. It’s only 13 pages.

I read it.
“Abstract: Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s,” which is what I said. I also said the focus was almost entirely on the cooling, not monolithically on the cooling. I also said the only “anthropogenic” factors scientists were concerned with were lead additives in gasoline and particulates from industrial exhaust stacks …” and the AMS paper confirms that: “However, it was generally accepted that both CO2 and anthropogenic aerosols were increasing.”

May 27, 2012 10:50 pm

One point I haven’t seen raised yet is that most of the solutions to the coming ice age back in the 1970s were remarkably similar to the solutions proposed for alleged AGW today, including eliminating the use of oil & coal, more solar/wind power, more “sustainable” power sources and resource use, etc.
Funny how -even when the problems change- the solutions remain the same.

richardscourtney
May 28, 2012 1:36 am

Izen:
At May 27, 2012 at 5:23 pm, you admit that you were wrong when (at at May 27, 2012 at 1:16 am) you had claimed;

There is no science in the CIA report.

Having been forced to admit your claim was a lie, your post (at May 27, 2012 at 5:23 pm) says

As it happens the very scientist you mention that is quoted in this paper has continued work on regional climate change. Here is a up-to-date take on what Kutzbach thinks will happen now. Things have changes since that CIA document was written. {grin}

Yes, of course “things have changed since that CIA document was written” in the early 1970s.
This thread is about the fact that global COOLING was the so-called consensus in the 1970s but global WARMING is the so-called consensus now.
Richard

richardscourtney
May 28, 2012 1:55 am

Casey Tompkin:
At May 27, 2012 at 10:50 pm you say;

One point I haven’t seen raised yet is that most of the solutions to the coming ice age back in the 1970s were remarkably similar to the solutions proposed for alleged AGW today, including eliminating the use of oil & coal, more solar/wind power, more “sustainable” power sources and resource use, etc.
Funny how -even when the problems change- the solutions remain the same.

Ah, but the “problems” (really ‘objectives’) remained the same.
In the early 1970s the CIA report detailed the observed global cooling of the previous three decades. But it does not mention any anthropogenic cause for that cooling.
Misanthropes observed the global cooling, too, and they decided to make use of it to further their desire to hinder industrial activity. They proclaimed;
The global climate is cooling and that poses a threat. The cooling is caused by emissions of sulphur dioxide from industrial activity so the emissions must be curtailed.
But the global climate stopped cooling and started to warm at about the time of the CIA report. By about 1980 the warming could no longer be denied, so the misanthropes morphed their proclamation into
The global climate is warming and that poses a threat. The warming is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide from industrial activity so the emissions must be curtailed.
The warming stopped a decade ago and the misanthropes are now trying to morph their proclamation into
The global climate is wierding and that poses a threat. The wierding is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide from industrial activity so the emissions must be curtailed.
Richard

May 28, 2012 3:32 am

Casey Tompkins says:
May 27, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Funny how -even when the problems change- the solutions remain the same.

Well, of course, since AGW causes both warming and cooling, along with wetter and drier seasons, and increases and decreases in both numbers and severity of storms. It also causes insects and small mammals to expand their ranges while preventing them from expanding their ranges while they are simultaneously increasing in numbers and going extinct.
*koff*

Brian H
May 28, 2012 5:34 am

Bill Tuttle says:
May 28, 2012 at 3:32 am

Yup. Their operational motto is, or should be, “Cog Dis R Us!”
LOL

May 28, 2012 6:07 am

So, are we all agreed here then,
that it is currently cooling
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
as it was in the in the sixties up until the early seventies
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
However, Orssengo calculated the max. of warming at around 2000
whereas I calculate it at least 5 years ealier, around 1994/1995.
meaning the Orssengo graph must be re-calculated and shifted a little bit to the left.
Does Orssengo still live?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/

Gail Combs
May 28, 2012 2:42 pm

HenryP says:
May 28, 2012 at 6:07 am
So, are we all agreed here then,
that it is currently cooling….
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
__________________________________________
HenryP you should look at the long term trend not Orssengo.
Lucky Skywalker put together a great flick graph a few years ago that shows what I mean. http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif
Here is another graph, 200 yr temperature based on non-tree ring proxies: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/
You also should look at Roe’s 2006 paper on Milankovitch: The following is a graph of the June solar insolation at 65N vs the RATE OF CHANGE in ice volume. (Roe’s contribution is rate of change in ice) And you clearly get a spectacular agreement between the theoretically calculated insolation curve (cyan) and the derivatives of the reconstructed ice volumes (white). Here is the graph: http://lh4.ggpht.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/TDL7RSCEgZI/AAAAAAAAEGE/0HeA3XYGVmM/milankovitch-roe-fig2.JPG
Another paper mentions the insolation has decreased by 9% since the Holecene Maximum.

Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
….Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages,….

And a third paper states:

Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)
…Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial….

The evidence suggests the earth is in a long slow descent into another ice age thanks to the Milankovitch cycle orbital changes with decadal ups and downs in temperature due to ENSO, PDO, NAO, changes in clouds and so on. But the overall direction is still DOWN.

May 28, 2012 10:58 pm

Gail says:
The evidence suggests the earth is in a long slow descent into another ice age
Henry@Gail
Hi Gail. Thanks. I have had a look at those graphs before and I understand what you are saying. You want me to get the longterm view. However, I was actually interested in the short time view as determined Orssengo and also confirmed by myself. Does anyone know if Orssengo still has a view on his work from before? Was Orssengo perhaps not his real name?
Even though I know we are currently in a cooling period I am not too worried about a coming ice age as I think we will be able to thwart it with our increasing knowledge. Actually, one of the real anthropogenic activities is that of removal of snow.
This does cause warming as, if it were left naturally, it would deflect a lot more light. Increasing snowcover forms the basis of almost any ice age trap. If we see abnormal snowcover happening on a wide scale at sometime in the future (the onset of an ice age) we can take precautions by covering the snow with soot or perhaps get it to melt by some other means.