[Local copy of PDF of the article]
Its interesting to see that this article manages to quote the 1975 NAS report fairly: "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.". But what it appears to fail to see is the contradiction between the NAS report, above, and the alarmism of its own text.
Oh, copyright: that subsists whereever it does: presumably with newsweek, unless its expired by now. I wonder.
|This is the text, as transcribed at Rush's site. Text omitted in the Rush transcription but included here is in red (thanks to E Zubek).||
"The Cooling World" - by Peter GwynneApril 28, 1975 Newsweek
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.
The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.
Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
Having noticed some local junk: www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0411/opinion/derr.htm, Steve Roof contacted the author and was referred to the NY Times. He says:
Interestingly, the only article in the 14 Aug 1975 NY Times is titled "Warming Trend Seen in Climate" It says two scientists (Broecker is one of them) "have questioned the widely-publicized predictions that, in coming decades, the world climate will deteriorate severely..." No reference is given for this "widely publicized prediction", and the rest of the article nicely reviews the two new studies.
So to see if the NY Times ever had more to say on scientific consensus on global coolong, I searched for any articles containing the words "Global Climate" from 1960 through 1980. I found about 10, most of which review the emerging understanding of past climate and new worries about future climate change (i.e., pretty much along the lines of the 1975 NAS report).
Three are worth noting, mostly for their scary headlines, but the texts are actual a good review of the emerging knowledge of the times. And if ou want to pick your favorite quotes, there are some nice statements foreshadowing the climate change concerns of today. Nothing I found supports the notion of a scientific consensus on global cooling of course.
8 Aug 1974: Climate Changes Endanger Worlds Food Output
21 May 1975 Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing (second page headline reads "Scientists ponder why world's climate is changing; A major cooling widely considered to be inevitable")
19 Jan 1975 Climate Changes Called Ominous, Scientists warn predictions must be made precise to avoid catastrophe
Having looked through the links (they are PDFs, BTW, 100-400k ish) I think his description is about right: as is so typical for newspapers, the text is better than the headlines. The text too is a little garbled, and really fails to emphasise the key points (it does mention them but not emphasise them: probably because they are perceived as too boring) that at the time they didn't really know enough to predict.
[Home] Page proudly created with vi... or vim... or...