Subject: Re: control the climate From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) Newsgroups: sci.environment [ #5817 ] Date: 9 Jun 1995 19:30:25 GMT Organization: University of WI, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept. Message-ID: <3ra7gi$bnt@spool.cs.wisc.edu> References: It is not correct to assert either that 1) few scientists were worried about imminent ice age onset twenty years ago nor that 2) few persons concerned about human impact on the environment were worried about it. Witness: FULL DISPLAY ITEM 1 (of 1) AUTHOR Ponte, Lowell, 1946- TITLE The cooling / by Lowell Ponte. -- Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, c1976. (*WMC - see end of article for more info on this book*) with an introduction by our own (I mean the meteorology department at the University of Wisconsin's own) professor (now emeritus) Reid Bryson. Bryson coined the term "human volcano" to designate the human output of particulates, which he feared might contribute to triggerring the then plausible scenario of a sudden onset ice age. (Contrary to Niven and Pournelle's ridiculous botch in their science fiction novel _Fallen Angels_, this is no longer considered plausible. See Crowley & North, _Paleoclimatology_, Oxford U press, 1991, pp 121-122.) Bryson, by the way, remains a greenhouse skeptic, and is frequently embarassed by invitations to speak to ultraconservative groups. It is important to note exactly who made those predictions, (or more properly, who expressed those worries) about an imminent ice age, and who is now predicting rapid global warming. By and large these are not the same people. The first group was essentially the observational paleoclimatologists. Bryson still claims that "the proper tool of the climatologist is the shovel". The compendium by Lamb which Tom Moore takes as his primary reference was essentially the pinnacle of achievement in that field. With all due respect (I mean this quite seriously - the erudition and breadth of knowledge of these people, Lamb in particular - is enormously impressive) to that group, their grasp of mathematics and statistics was weak, and of physics weaker still. For instance, Lamb's prediction in particular of imminent and rapid cooling was based on, essentially, a crude Fourier analysis (best fits of sinusoidal curves to his record). Since one of the dominant features was a rapid rise over the last century, the *presumption* of a cyclical nature of the record forced a prediction of a rapid cooling *precisely because there had been a recent rapid warming*. And although the niceties of periodograms had all been worked out by that time, Lamb seemed blissfully ignorant of the need to take particular care when fitting sinusoids to a record with significant information at its termination. In the 1970s, a separate discipline of physical climatology was just emerging from an infancy at the peripheries of mathematics and astrophysics. Since the 1890s, physical climatologists or their precursors have always asserted that the anthropogenic cooling of the human volcano was counterbalanced and probably outweighed by anthropogenic warming of the human greenhouse. The groups making the assertions were essentially distinct, the group asserting warming was making far more specific and testable predictions, and the reasoning behind the assertions was far more clearly based in established and demonstrated results in physical science. However, it is completely false to say that no scientists or no "environmentalists" were concerned about global cooling or human effects on such hypothetical cooling. Science, vol 193 pp 447 ff, Aug 6, 1976, has an article specifically addressing the then widely held perception of global cooling and presenting arguments that to the contrary, predict warming. (The article is entitled "Global Cooling?") Interestingly, in this article Stephen Schneider is mentioned as being firmly in the camp that expected warming. I wonder on what basis he has been accused of ever having been in the cooling camp - perhaps on the basis of a statement cynically removed from its context? (*WMC more info on "The cooling": I haven't read this book (can't find it in the UL) but here are all the citations for Ponte,L: PONTE_L, 1976, COOLING.....................................................1 PONTE_L, 1980, READERS DIGEST JAN........................................1 PONTE_L, 1980, READERS DIGEST OCT........................................2 PONTE_L, 1981, READERS DIGEST JUL........................................1 PONTE_L, 1983, Vol.122, READERS DIG........................................1 PONTE_L, 1983, Vol.122, READERS DIGEST.....................................1 PONTE_L, 1983, READERS DIGEST FEB........................................1 PONTE_L, 1991, READERS DIGEST MAR........................................1 So: "The cooling" has been cited once. Who by? by: TI: SEDATE CATASTROPHE AU: JUENEMAN_FB JN: RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, 1989, Vol.31, No.1, p.41 DT: Editorial CR: EISELEY_L, 1969, UNEXPECTED UNIVERSE EPHRON_L, 1988, END IMMINENT ICE AGE HAMAKER_JD, 1982, SURVIVAL CIVILIZATIO HENZEL_J, 1894, BREAD STONES PONTE_L, 1976, COOLING By an editorial. Hmmm.