Watch: The 1970s Cooling Scare Was Real

From Climate Depot

By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Watch this historical record of predictions for global cooling in the 1970s and compare it with the apocalyptic predictions of warming today. The Emperor has no clothes. We are in the Pleistocene Ice Age.
The 1970s Cooling Scare Was Real https://t.co/AIzdnenEVr via @YouTube pic.twitter.com/bSxnPsg9rh

— Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) December 22, 2021


5 21 votes
Article Rating
98 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael Nagy
December 24, 2021 6:15 am

I lived through this and know it was real. Remember, the alarmist back then wanted to use giant airplanes to dump coal dust on the poles and Greenland to melt the ice faster.

michael hart
Reply to  Michael Nagy
December 24, 2021 7:23 am

I was there too. It was real media hype that sold copy. Today is more advanced, technologically speaking, but the BS is there, just the same. Same motivations. Same as it ever was.

Curious George(@moudryj)
Reply to  michael hart
December 24, 2021 7:29 am

Same people as well, except those who died.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Curious George
December 24, 2021 10:27 am

Yes, some of those alarmists were onboard the Human-caused Global Cooling train, and then when the temperatures started warming up in the 1980’s, they pivoted 180 degrees, and got on the Human-caused Global Warming train.

And now it’s starting to cool again. It may be time for another pivot.

WXcycles
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 24, 2021 4:26 pm

Ah, yes, but you forget the interconnecting acid-rain train, that met with the chlorofluorocarbon train, to buy a ticket for the global-warming train. Which broke down before it ever left the station … due to a lack of coal.

anna v
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 24, 2021 8:45 pm

The pivot has already happened, have you not noticed that “global warming” has become “climate change” ?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  anna v
December 25, 2021 4:29 am

Alarmist Climate Science is full of ambiguous descriptions.

Science is supposed to be as precise as possible. Ambiguous descriptions don’t fit this bill.

Ambiguous descriptions fit the climate change propagada bill.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Michael Nagy
December 24, 2021 7:33 am

I was at the university at that time. It was the mainstream “ecological” subject.

Reply to  Joao Martins
December 24, 2021 9:06 am

And it was being heard in middle school. Repeating the experience I told about in my May 2011 guest post at CEI’s blog,

In the mid ’70s during a school discussion of the then-current global cooling crisis, a classmate asked if I was concerned about advancing ice sheets. I replied, “No, I’m sure I can outrun a glacier.”

If I remember right, it wasn’t led by the teacher, but was instead just a spontaneous topic among us kids in our science class.

Ellen
Reply to  Michael Nagy
December 24, 2021 8:38 am

The narrative is heat now, instead of cold, but the cure is the same: give our money to the Left, and do as they say. Only this time they’ve added pronouns.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ellen
December 24, 2021 10:29 am

Excellent!

Brad-DXT
Reply to  Michael Nagy
December 24, 2021 9:29 am

I lived through this too. The alarmists were also talking about setting off nukes on the poles to melt them.
Alarmists are the tools of the new world order folks that look to control every aspect of human life. Anything to ramp up fear to gain more control be it weather or a virus.
1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a guidebook.

Reply to  Michael Nagy
December 24, 2021 9:33 am

I knew it was real because Spock told me so…

SxyxS
Reply to  taz1999
December 25, 2021 11:18 am

Now I know it is real because Di Caprio told me so.
(Whenever he is not jetting around the world or on a yacht of a royal arab billonaire (oh human,female and gay rights)
he is superbusy saving the climate.

Mark Whitney
Reply to  Michael Nagy
December 24, 2021 9:34 am

I as well. The main difference was that we were not quite so conditioned to gullibility and still questioned authority.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mark Whitney
December 24, 2021 10:37 am

I would say it took me about a year, after I started seeing the Human-caused Global Cooling claims in the literature, to realize they didn’t have any evidence for these claims, just unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions.

I was willing to give the alarmists the benefit of the doubt, and I kept waiting and waiting, but they never produced anything close to definitive evidence of what they claimed, and it frustrated me to no end.

What really was frustrating to me was them using speculation as established fact. And publications like Scientific American were putting this BS (Bad Science) out. I wish the internet had been available back then. I would have blistered someone’s ears/eyes.

And now we have the exact same situation with Human-caused Global Warming. It’s promoters have never produced one shred of evidence backing up their claims. Yet the world carries on as if they have.

Delusional.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 24, 2021 1:05 pm

A few comments above you state that cooling is starting to happen, without a shred of evidence apart, I guess, from a few years of data post an El Nino event. If you have some strong evidence, I want to see it. Otherwise , you’ll have to wait to see if your speculation is correct.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  4 Eyes
December 24, 2021 3:43 pm

Here’s the front page of the UAH satellite website.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

This is evidence of cooling.

Yes, we will have to wait a little longer to better see the trend.

John Boland
Reply to  4 Eyes
December 24, 2021 5:09 pm

Fair point, so we can agree that the evidence is not there either way. The only thing we can count on is change. Everything else is a carnival side show.

WXcycles
Reply to  Michael Nagy
December 24, 2021 4:22 pm

I remember it.

Tom Halla
December 24, 2021 6:15 am

James Delingpole also dealt with the Global
Cooling denial paper.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Halla
bonbon
December 24, 2021 6:20 am

Today the Emperor’s tailors have no gold, sorry, have no green, sorry, are utterly bankrupt and ruthlessly, relentlessly pursue NetZero for a $100 TRILLION bail-out.

Net-Zero a Ruthless, Relentless Focus for GFANZ: Mark Carney , UN Climate Finance czar, at COP26 :
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-11-01/net-zero-a-ruthless-relentless-focus-for-gfanz-carney-video

The difference is in the 1970’s the transatlantic was prosperous – today after decades of globalization, de-industrialization, just look at deficits, and FED money pumping, and now inflation, not just in energy prices.
This a completely different Money-cene from the Pleistocene, sorry, 1970’s.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bonbon
December 24, 2021 8:58 am

More like Ob-cene!

John Tillman
December 24, 2021 6:36 am

I’m surprised that Stephen Schneider, whom I knew, would use the degree symbol with Kelvin.

Jan de Jong
Reply to  John Tillman
December 24, 2021 7:20 am

Abolished in 1968.

John Tillman
Reply to  Jan de Jong
December 24, 2021 7:25 am

Somehow, he hadn’t gotten the message yet.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
December 24, 2021 9:00 am

Some people reflexively still use “Centigrade.” Old habits die hard.

John Adams
Reply to  John Tillman
December 24, 2021 7:29 am

Why would he use Kelvin which is obscure to the layman instead of the identically sized Celsius?

John Tillman
Reply to  John Adams
December 24, 2021 7:31 am

To sound more sciency. But then he blew by using the degree sign.

Mark BLR
Reply to  John Tillman
December 24, 2021 9:18 am

… use the degree symbol with Kelvin

I keep getting conflicting “advice” on this issue, maybe someone here can point me (and everyone else …) to the “definitive” answer ?

1) Absolute temperatures : Use “Kelvin” or “degrees Celsius / Fahrenheit”

0°C = 32°F = 273.13K

2) Differences in temperature : Use “degrees K” or “C / F degrees” (?!)

1 = 1.8F° = 1°K

Reply to  Mark BLR
December 24, 2021 2:27 pm

I don’t know a definitive answer to your question, but I think the best answer is probably to just make sure your prose is clear. E.g., if you mean “difference in temperature of…” say “difference in temperature of…”.

A nit: I think you meant:

0°C = 32°F = 273.15K

Tom
December 24, 2021 6:45 am

I lived through this, in Northern Minnesota, even walking to school one morning (3 blocks) when the radio reported the temperature was minus 53 degrees F. We all thought this was simply normal, and it ignored the scare stories. I even filled a glass jug with green chlorine gas and left it on the back porch to liquify (at around -40) but it was March by then, and never got that cold.

mkelly
December 24, 2021 6:52 am

The CIA report on global cooling had the same dire predictions as they now make for global warming. One brings death the other more food.
I got this from Tony Heller’s site.
Grabbed wrong image.

924FC1C3-2087-4B0E-BBC9-2FF84B3C337D.jpeg
Last edited 1 month ago by mkelly
mkelly
December 24, 2021 6:55 am

This is better.

comment image

Reply to  mkelly
December 24, 2021 3:54 pm

Here’s a 1974 CIA report:

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf (or here)

This one appears to be a different scan of the same document:

https://sealevel.info/CIAclimateResearchIntellProbs_1974.pdf

I think that’s the report referred to in the 1976 news article. My guess is that it was prepared and dated in 1974, but not released until 1976.

(Or, was there another CIA climate report in 1976?)

Here’s an excerpt, from the Summary:

“The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change… during 50 of the last 60 years the Earth has, on the average, enjoyed the best agricultural climate since the eleventh century… The world is returning to the type of climate which has existed over the last 400 years. That is, the abnormal climate of agricultural-optimum is being replaced by a normal climate of the neo-boreal era. The climate change began in 1960…”

The grim climate to which we were thought to be returning was the Little Ice Age. “Boreal” means cold:

boreal. adj. Relating to or characteristic of the climatic zone south of the Arctic, especially the cold temperate region dominated by taiga and forests of birch, poplar, and conifers…

 ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍

This was a different report, from the same time period:

https://sealevel.info/CIA1974_potentialtrends.pdf

Here’s an excerpt:

In general, the period about 7000 to 5000 years ago was warmer than today, although the records of mountain glaciers, tree lines, and tree rings reveal that the past 7000 years was punctuated in many parts of the world by colder intervals about every 2500 years, with the most recent occurring about 300 years ago.

 ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences also published a long climate report, the following year:

https://sealevel.info/resources.html#nas1975

Here’s an excerpt:

A striking feature of the instrumental record is the behavior of temperature worldwide. As shown by Mitchell (1970), the average surface air temperature in the northern hemisphere increased from the 1880’s until about 1940 and has been decreasing thereafter (see Figure A.6, Appendix A). Starr and Oort (1973) have reported that, during the period 1958-1963, the hemisphere’s (mass-weighted) mean temperature decreased by about 0.6 °C. In that period the polar and subtropical arid regions experienced the greatest cooling.

Here’s another excerpt:

In summary, we may say that observational data at the earth’s surface show that during the period 1900 to 1940 the northern hemisphere as a whole warmed, although some areas (mainly the Atlantic sector of the Arctic and northern Siberia) warmed far more than the global average, some areas became colder, and others showed little measurable change (Mitchell, 1963). In the time since 1940, an overall cooling has occurred but is again characterized by a geographical structure cooling since 1958 has occurred in the subtropical arid regions and in the Arctic (Starr and Oort, 1973). There is also some evidence that the northern hemisphere oceans are cooling (Namias, 1972b), although the oceanic data base necessary to confirm this has not yet been assembled.

 ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍

Here’s a paper that it referenced:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-3290-2_14

Here’s the abstract:

The trend of world temperature in this century appears to be directly related to the trends of atmospheric carbon dioxide content and atmospheric turbidity (dustiness). Both are believed by various scholars to be related to human activities. Since 1940, the effect of the rapid rise of atmospheric turbidity appears to have exceeded the effect of rising carbon dioxide, resulting in a rapid downward trend of temperature. There is no indication that these trends will be reversed, and there is some reason to believe that man-made pollution will have an increased effect in the future.

 ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍

It is interesting and disturbing that some of the papers referenced in those reports seem to have simply disappeared, like this one:

Mitchell, J. M., Jr. (1974). The global cooling effect of increasing atmospheric aerosols, fact or fiction? Proc. IAMAP/WMO Symp. Phys. and Dyn. Climatol. (Leningrad, USSR, August 16-20, 1971), World Meteorological Organization, Geneva (in press).

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Burton
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Burton
December 25, 2021 5:09 pm

Thanks Dave, great collection of summaries.

Alarmists try to pretend that the “Ice Age Cometh” concerns didn’t exist. But the facts show differently.

Edim
December 24, 2021 7:09 am

The 2030s cooling scare will be real too.

HenryP
Reply to  Edim
December 24, 2021 7:21 am

Don’t worry! There is Peace!
Immanuel: God is with us, in the same boat. He can direct the wind as He pleases….
Wishing you Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

https://breadonthewater.co.za/2021/12/15/christmas-and-the-coming-of-peace/

griff
December 24, 2021 7:38 am

In the early 70s there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. 

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 7:40 am

Provide the evidence or you will be called a liar.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 24, 2021 9:04 am

Judging by his/her past actions, (s)he doesn’t care if others see him/her for what (s)he is.

Mr.
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 7:46 am

“Predictions are tricky. Especially about the future”

Maybe all these climate conjecture ‘scientists’ should abide by Yogi Berra’s sage observation.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 7:53 am

the video addressed that claim- so that proves you didn’t watch it

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 7:58 am

Griff is clueless about the Scientific Method.

Even if your assertion was true (it isn’t), when was a scientific hypothesis ever confirmed by the number of people who subscribed to it?

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 24, 2021 8:14 am

Dear Mr. President:

Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research.

The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.

The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.

Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man’s interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace.

The practical consequences which might be brought by such developments to existing social institution are among others:

(1) Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected.

(2) Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc.

With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research …

–- and so on —

With best regards,

George J.Kukla (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory)

R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown U)

The October 1972 Science article about the conference was: 
“The Present Interglacial, How and When will it End

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 24, 2021 9:06 am

… confirmed by the number of people who subscribed to it

That says much about the mentality of those who harp on consensus or claim “The science is settled.”

garboard
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 7:58 am

isn’t interesting then that it was the doomsday predictions that got all the publicity ?

Redge
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 8:09 am

No there wasn’t

Name them

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 8:11 am

That is demonstrably a falsehood. The Letter to President Nixon of 3 December 1972 about the dangers of the oncoming glaciation was sent on behalf of 42 scientists. So please give us a few names of the at least 252 climate scientists who said otherwise.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 9:05 am

Deserved

5BB0096A-BA9F-4F41-9341-A1B993C74BFA.jpeg
Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 9:41 am

It is so easy to trust your unsubstantiated pronouncements, griffy.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 10:38 am

You’re lying as usual. Almost no one was discussing warming.

By Angus McFarlane,
There was an overwhelming scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was heading into a period of significant cooling. The possibility of anthropogenic warming was relegated to a minority of the papers in the peer-reviewed literature“.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 12:11 pm

Says who? Oreskes?…

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 12:50 pm

Liar liar pants on fire.

Ted
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 2:57 pm

And Cook found 50% more climate scientists say humans are not responsible for even 10% of warming rather than humans being the primary cause of warming. Anderegg’s data shows the same for disagreement with the IPCC’s basic claims compared to support.

Ready to agree that both were just fear mongering?

pigs_in_space
Reply to  griff
December 24, 2021 10:50 pm

Nutter is calling!
In 1970 he wasn’t even born, but claims to know everything about everything.

cerescokid
Reply to  griff
December 25, 2021 2:24 am

Griff

You are shameless. Lol. You don’t know. Were there surveys of climate scientists done then. One of the reasons I got interested in AGW was because of dopey claims like yours. People going on and on about things they had no clue about. Did you live through that period like a lot of us? Your grandma probably had to tell you about the 1970s. Did she tell you how cool plaid bell bottoms were?

When you get some concrete evidence produce it. Put up or shut up.

SxyxS
Reply to  griff
December 25, 2021 11:25 am

Dude, if you would have bothered to watch the Video you would have realised that this fake claim was debunked and that the number of ice age scientists was much higher than the number of warmunists.

DonM
Reply to  griff
December 27, 2021 5:20 pm

gRIFF, you are confused.

It is 4 out of 5 (or 4 times as many).

It is ‘Trident’ that is preferred … not warming.

And it is Dentists, not scientists.

… keep your advertising campaigns straight.

markl
December 24, 2021 7:40 am

The Marxists don’t do history. When it gets in their way they rewrite it. Harder to do these days with the internet so now they censure it by omission.

Wharfplank
December 24, 2021 7:51 am

These retrospective peeks at a phenomenon that was short-lived and a mile wide and an inch deep make me sad. There is simply NO comparison to what is happening today. The retreat of Christianity here in the US, I believe, is responsible for the rise of the Messianic Environmentalist. And what is happening now, the end of coal, manufacturing, natural gas hookups, actually phasing out the internal combustion engine and gasoline simply didn’t have a counterpart in the 70’s. PS My conspiracy theory mind goes into overdrive when biofuels were introduced that would make gas “environmentally friendly”…but also give gas a “shelf life”, precluding long term storage.

Olen
December 24, 2021 8:12 am

It sounds 50/50 to me.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Olen
December 24, 2021 10:42 am

Not even close. There was a greater than 80% ‘consensus’ that global cooling would kill us all.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/

Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 24, 2021 10:10 pm

Rory, in the 1970s there was a clear majority opinion that the world was cooling, and that that the cooling trend was a large potential problem. But I don’t recall anyone back then being nuts enough to say that climate change (cooling) would “kill us all.”

They weren’t as crazy as the XR and Guy McPherson crackpots we have now.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 25, 2021 5:19 pm

I actually read all the scientific literature at the time, and those promoting CO2 Global Warming, were few and far between in the 1970’s.

As the 1980’s started to roll around and warming began, the Global Warming promoters took over the headlines.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 25, 2021 7:11 pm

That was my experience as well. I remember being considerably taken aback when almost miraculously the “science” began its 180 degree about face. My BS meter became increasingly triggered by each new ‘revelation’. That’s also when the gaslighting began … mildly at first, but with increased venom as the politics became more entrenched. By the ’90s I knew we were being lied to.

garboard
December 24, 2021 8:21 am

climate apocalypse was entertaining fluff back then before the internet and multi 24/7 news channels , during the hey day of the cold war , watergate , stagflation , the gas crisis ; things that actually mattered to people . follow the money : it all goes back to maurice strong and his access to cash , especially rockefeller money in the 70’s . maurice strong , fossil fuel purveyor and self styled destroyer of western capitalism . the originator of the IPCC . canadian farm boy , self made oilogarch , highly acclaimed eco humanitarian , UN leader who ended up exiled in beijing after being caught taking million dollar bribes in UN programs .

sailor76
December 24, 2021 8:24 am

I do not remember any of these articles, but I do have a personal experience from that time.

I came to Timmins Ontario in the middle of September 1976 to work for a year in the mining industry. The snow came the last day of September and did not leave till the middle of May 1977 and it was cold. I remember nights of -60C and changing tire with bare hands where my fingers almost froze on the lognuts.

Just a personal anecdote to validate that it was indeed cold in the mid 70’s.

paul courtney
Reply to  sailor76
December 24, 2021 12:48 pm

Mr. 76: Thanks for that. My own experience included living in NE Ohio before ’77-’78, SE Ohio after; and four years in Milwaukee. Those were the worst winters in all three regions for many, many years, before and after. The coming ice age was in the news, and even back then the news knew which “experts” to interview. When those same experts later flipped to AGW the news folks never noticed the contrast. I learned a great deal from watching enviros and the press perform duets for the last 5-6 decades.

MarkW
December 24, 2021 9:07 am

50 years from now, as the usual suspects will be pushing the latest scare all the while denying that they ever proclaimed warming to be a problem.
And of course, what ever the problem, the solution will be a one world socialist government.

Alan
December 24, 2021 9:45 am

I remember it very well. Got down to 5⁰ for two or three days. The cooling triggered a very hot summer. Just like warming triggers snow in the winter.

To bed B
December 24, 2021 10:25 am

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears, did it make a sound? 0r, if you get to write the history, were you really a BS artist?

Pat from kerbob
December 24, 2021 10:27 am

The winters in the 70’s were awful on the Saskatchewan prairies
4 day blizzards, 20’ snow drifts, I had a paper route and I would freeze my butt off, used my toboggan to drag those papers all over town.
We’d have weeks of -30c or colder and when we’d get a little chinook from Alberta and the temp came above freezing for a day we’d all run around without coats celebrating like it’s some sort liberation.

I have my mom’s photo albums, year after year of massive snow drifts that we could tunnel in to standing up, all ended in the winter of 81-82 thankfully.

And based on the mindset and verbiage of the climate Scientologists this is what they want to somehow force us back to, not possible but it shows the level of insanity present in all these people.
It was an awful time.

Griff, do you have any real idea of what you are wishing for?

The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
December 24, 2021 10:29 am

“The Weather Machine” was made into a two-hour PBS documentary in 1975 – and it’s one of the better, level-headed summaries of what the state of thought was back then.

It can be found here:

https://archive.org/details/theweathermachinepart1

https://archive.org/details/theweathermachinepart2

To just get and download the whole thing as four MP4 video files, use these links:

https://archive.org/download/theweathermachinepart1/theweathermachinepart1reel1.mp4

https://archive.org/download/theweathermachinepart1/theweathermachinepart1reel2.mp4

https://archive.org/download/theweathermachinepart2/theweathermachinepart2reel1.mp4

https://archive.org/download/theweathermachinepart2/theweathermachinepart2reel2.mp4

(If or when it starts playing, just right-click and you should be able to save the MP4 file.)

If you’d like a good watch over the holiday, this provides it.

Jon R
December 24, 2021 10:59 am

My family is Christian because the book late great planet earth came out back then and said that Jesus was going to freeze the earth or unless you excepted him.

John Larson
Reply to  Jon R
December 24, 2021 1:22 pm

Hmm, shoulda done more research it seems to me.

“… and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”

Jesus is apparently not into the catasrophic climate change thing . . anymore ; )

Last edited 1 month ago by John Larson
Philip Rose
December 24, 2021 11:27 am

I am so ancient and clearly recall attribution to smog/aerosols from burning fossil fuels, hence the subsequent bans on domestic coal burning and generation with fuel oil. And lo the trend reversed, warming came about. Attribution? Again, burning fossil fuels, now producing CO2 etc. Always the fossil fuels! Apparently started by the nuclear industry, of which James Hanson was a supporter. Now it’s driven by world socialism and desire to control our mobility and life-styles. Increasingly appears however that it is all part of long term ocean current phases, as hinted at by climate-gate icons Phil & Mick. All will be revealed like the quarks, as the trillion funded
research plays out.

Chris Hanley
December 24, 2021 12:55 pm

Not only has the cooling scare gone down the memory hole, the cooling itself has been sent there also.

Bruce Cobb
December 24, 2021 1:01 pm

The cooling was certainly real. Their attribution to aerosols seem to have been based primarily on assumptions though. There appear to be periodic, quasi-cyclical warming and cooling periods which have nothing to do with man. Not least because human activity can contribute to both warming and cooling. It is therefore laughable nonsense to try to say that man can affect climate to any great degree. That certainly doesn’t stop the charlatans though, from doing just that.

Steve Garcia(@feet2thefire)
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 24, 2021 11:57 pm

If I may, as to “a periodic cyclic warming and cooling”, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was discovered by a biologist from Univ. of Wasington in about 1997, when he was studying salmon returns to their home rivers in BC and Alaska and Washington state. He found that there are two regimes to the warmthh of the northren pacific waters. Each regime lasted for about 20 to 30 years, with few years in the middle. This toggling mechanism coincided with the 1970 centered cool period and the warming out of that was to be centered around 1990-2000. He found that when the northern Pacific was warm, the central USA was cool (and salmon counts were high), and when the northern pacific was cool the central USA was warm (and salmon counts were low). The SE USA was in phase with the warm or cool northern Pacific.

n.n
December 24, 2021 1:11 pm

Climate cooling… warming… change is undeniable, unfalsifiable… perpetual crisis for-profit. However, [catastrophic] [athropogenic] carbon dioxide forcing is not so much.

n.n
December 24, 2021 1:17 pm

The blacktop effect mitigated cooling. The Greenhouse effect is forcing greening. The temperature evolves in space and time with an impulsive orientation (e.g. recurring blocking events that force statistical anomalies).

Al in Cranbrook
December 24, 2021 1:28 pm

Late ’70s, the CBC National, then hosted by Peter Mansbridge, ran a roughly 10 minute documentary during its evening news hour about what seemed to be the return of the ice age, narrated by Adrian Clarkson…I know this because I watched it.

Shortened growing seasons, global crop failures, increasingly severe winters, etc., the end of the world as we know it is nigh.

Good luck trying to find this in the CBC archives! I can’t find it…but maybe someone here is better at such searches than I???

Al in Cranbrook
Reply to  Al in Cranbrook
December 24, 2021 1:30 pm

That should read “Adrienne Clarkson”.

Gunga Din
December 24, 2021 1:34 pm

“Everybody complains about the weather nobody does anything about it.”
It’s still true that nobody CAN do anything about the weather.
But some have learned to profit from it by pretending they can.

Ulric Lyons
December 24, 2021 3:15 pm

Earth is colder when the solar wind is stronger, as in the early to mid 1970’s, because ENSO and the AMO change inversely to changes in the solar wind strength. The AMO was much colder, and there were multi-year La Nina conditions, but the UK and Europe were toasting, so was California. That’s all driven by a positive NAO/AO regime.

Attribution to a cooling effect from industrial aerosols is highly questionable, as low altitude aerosols exacerbate land heatwaves considerably. As with the hot UK summer of 1783 with fumes and dust from the Laki eruption, heavy industrial air pollution with the record high UK max temperatures in Easter 2011 and through 22-27 Feb 2019, the Moscow 2010 summer heatwave with forest fire smoke in the air, and in Syracuse Sicily in August 2021 with fire smoke.

Solar plasma temperature, density, and pressure:

comment image

Jamaica
December 24, 2021 3:40 pm

I loved those winters.

Peter Morris
December 24, 2021 8:22 pm

I know it was real from its imprint on popular culture. There are a few cartoons and some sci-fi short stories that I saw and read in the 1980s that prominently featured pollution causing global cooling, and either leading to an ice age or or a world covered in soot and smog.

Since I was only 4 in 1980, I don’t remember the height of the scare, but those artifacts left an impression on me as a child.

Steve Garcia(@feet2thefire)
December 24, 2021 11:46 pm

One thing I remember was that Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution was at the enter of that, and the very same Woods Hole was a leader when the flipped to alarmism about warming. A second center of that was East Anglia, and they, too flippedd when flipping was a bigger bandwagon, but early on. Cooling didn’t make for grant money, as I have underrstood it over the years. But warming sure did.

Like others here, I remember the period from the winter of 1976-77 all the way through the winter of 1984-85 was freaking HORRIBLE cold, and not a little bit of blizzard-like weather. That last winter, between Rockford and Chiaggo in my town the temp got down to -34F. I NEVER want to do that again. I had lived at the same latitude for most of the previous decade, and had not run into anything like that period. I simply could not figure out why Chicago was so darned frigid – shortly after I got there. I’d never heard of it being THAT cold.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steve Garcia
December 25, 2021 5:42 pm

It was just as cold in the decade of the 1910’s as it was in the decade of the 1970’s, according to the unmodified, U.S. surface temperature chart.

The temperaures cooled from the 1880’s to the 1910’s, then warmed to the 1930’s, then cooled again to the 1970’s, then warmed again to 1998, then flatlined (discounting El Nino’s) to 2016/2020, and have cooled 0.6C since that time.

The cooling from 1940 to 1980 was equivalent to about 2.0C of cooling (according to the US chart). So the 0.6C of present cooling means we are about 1.4C away from the temperatures of the 1970’s.

Here’s the U.S. surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999), shown next to a bogus Hockey Stick chart. Note the differnce in cooling from 1940 to 1980, on both charts. The Hockey Stick chart downplays the amount of cooling that took place during this period.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research//briefs/1999_hansen_07/

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 26, 2021 2:59 pm

Hi Tom
It’s more insidious than that.
The left graph is the USA, right graph is the world.
The USA has the best continuous records but doesn’t show the right info. Since modified which you can see if you go on the GISS website and graph the same 5 year mean 1880-2000

The world graph is made up of data points that are primarily cities, the only place they kept even partial records in most of the world.

And so of course that World graph is pretty much entirely UHI corruption

glenn holdcroft
December 25, 2021 5:59 am

I was taught this shiite in high school and that the world would run out of oil energy , made me think its the the end of the world , no point in having children etc . How times have changed but not peoples thinking .

Bruce Cobb
December 25, 2021 6:56 am

Ironically, much of what was said about the dangers of cooling (now falsely being attributed to “climate change”) was true. Cooling is in fact, far more dangerous, although we can certainly adapt, and have far more of the capability to adapt now. Good thing, because cooling might be coming, if not already here. How much cooling no one can predict, but another LIA type of cooling is certainly possible. We should be planning for that by doing the complete opposite of what the Climate Caterwaulers want us to.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 26, 2021 3:01 pm

Calling is not possible it is inevitable

A new glaciation period is also inevitable
They just jumped the gun by looking at the previous 30 years and then extrapolating forever.

Now where else have I read something similar

J.R.
December 25, 2021 9:50 am

Three different thoughts come to mind.

1) In 1973 I was in third grade. I remember the teacher telling us that a new ice age was coming. She wasn’t alarmed and she didn’t blather on about it, she just mentioned it as an apparently established fact. I specifically remember this because I was fascinated at the idea even at that young age. I imagined big cities in constant winter conditions and wondered how we would all deal with it.

2) While in college, one of my geology professors told the class that if a process takes less than ten thousand years to occur, geologists refer to it as “instantaneous.” Current and near-term conditions matter to human beings, but arguing about trends that occur over years or decades or even centuries is pointless.

3) The trap that too many people seem to fall into is, “If this trend continues….” That was the main reason for the global cooling scare, and that’s the main reason for the global warming scare. The trend never continues! It’s a “trend!” Trends go up, trends go down, trends fluctuate. Much peace and sanity would ensue if people realized the nature of trends.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  J.R.
December 25, 2021 5:49 pm

Alarmists think trends go on forever.

Al Miller
December 26, 2021 7:20 pm

I remember it very clearly- and all the experts who so damn sure about it. Makes all this politicized “science” clear for the junk it is. It’s incredibly frustrating that they just keep on lying and lying and lying.

Hans
Reply to  Al Miller
December 27, 2021 1:26 pm

Fear served hot or cold.

%d bloggers like this: