Ice Age Looms ( 1970's )

[UV-RAY]

Back in the 70's prior to the current alleged consensus of AGW climate scientist were adamant of an ice age being around the corner, now we know how that ended could the answer to the question of why they felt this be a simple one.

IMO climate scientist were basing their ideas on a simple phenomenon the PDO, during this period the PDO was in its negative phase this combined with a negative AMO lead many climate scientist into thinking an ice age was looming, why god only knows. Fast forward a decade later and that same phenomenon combined with the centuries highest solar output gave rise to what has now become that what shall remain nameless.

Fast forward again and we now have a negative PDO although the AMO remains positive and the lowest solar output for nearly a century, now we can witness first hand just which will prove the greater forcing. The outlook for proponents off AGW isn't looking very promising to be honest, lots of forecasted scenarios simply haven't materialised such as more hurricanes and snowless UK winters add to that the projected temp rises which are constantly being adjusted to either show we are warmer now than we where during the MWP, or the constant amendments to future rises in temps due to the fact that all previous forecasted rises haven't hit their targets today.

[Methuselah]

That's because all the natural drivers are clearly indicative of an impending glaciation, SI...I guess the prediction was ditched because it flies in the face of observation?

[be cause]

so .. we had a cool spring .. 

[UV-RAY]

so .. we had a cool spring ..

Thanks for your fantastic and informative response, we also had a relatively mild winter and your point is???

That's because all the natural drivers are clearly indicative of an impending glaciation, SI...I guess the prediction was ditched because it flies in the face of observation?

It does seem such a daft prediction back then Pete, just as well there were no climate forums back then, think of the carnage!

[Southern Storm]

[/Quote name]="Sceptical Inquirer" post="2706433" timestamp="1370248279"]Thanks for your fantastic and informative response, we also had a relatively mild winter and your point is???

Edited June 3, 2013 by thunderman24

[UV-RAY]

I wouldn't go as far too say it was a con job, embroidered yes. CO2 does act as a warming blanket but its down to other feedbacks IMO where the science becomes more fiction than fact. I think the worlds governments are conning us though with green taxes and renewables.

[Gael_Force]

I think we are entering a period where many accepted scientific theories may face a challenge. There are suddenly two new additions to the known climate drivers, the solar inactivity and the dramatic reduction of Arctic ice; much can be attributed to those for any changes to the expected (modelled) scenarios.

 

It seems that science is now accepting that warming may not be global and that regional anomalies may occur within an overall warming picture.....one just has to look at the current synoptics to see this.

 

An exciting period for climate scientists and armchair enthusiasts, as long as their ideas are not set in stone.

[Gray-Wolf]

As Pete says our orbital forcings should be allowing the far north to cool? This should lead to albedo changes and the loss of vegetation so reduction in CO2 inducing further cooling and so on.

 

This process takes many thousands of years to complete and so us being beyond 'maximum' in the current glacial cycle would have suggsted cooling and , this time around orbital forcings had the far north as the 'blighted' point on the planet.

 

As it is observations show that cooling had begun but stopped around the turn of the last century.

 

If you remember the old C&E section I posted up an E Mail from one of the NSIDC scientists who is a world leader in orbital forcings that basically said we look likelyto now skip the next two precessional cycles (46,000yrs) of cooling due to the GHG forcings now in the atmosphere.

[UV-RAY]

As Pete says our orbital forcings should be allowing the far north to cool? This should lead to albedo changes and the loss of vegetation so reduction in CO2 inducing further cooling and so on. This process takes many thousands of years to complete and so us being beyond 'maximum' in the current glacial cycle would have suggsted cooling and , this time around orbital forcings had the far north as the 'blighted' point on the planet. As it is observations show that cooling had begun but stopped around the turn of the last century. If you remember the old C&E section I posted up an E Mail from one of the NSIDC scientists who is a world leader in orbital forcings that basically said we look likelyto now skip the next two precessional cycles (46,000yrs) of cooling due to the GHG forcings now in the atmosphere.

Lol, somehow I highly doubt the all powerful CO2 will override orbital forcings. If this alleged expert stated that then he seriously needs re-educating.

[VillagePlank]

I thought that this was a misnomer?

 

[UV-RAY]

I thought that this was a misnomer?

 

GlobalCooling.JPG

For those of us old enough to remember this then the above consensus is nonsense.

[cheeky_monkey]

How much cooler would the globe be had CO2 levels stayed at the same level as pre-industrial times? and would the globe have cooled during the course of the 20th century or not?

[Methuselah]

For those of us old enough to remember this then the above consensus is nonsense.

Well, and I'm being honest here, I first read about it in the Daily Mail!

[VillagePlank]

For those of us old enough to remember this then the above consensus is nonsense.

 

Was it a media created circus, or a scientific consensus?

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sorry S.I. but I'm out of this thread.

 

Your attitude toward data ,facts and field experts stinks (IMHO). Facts are facts and if you dismiss them that is your choice but it does not alter the truth.

[UV-RAY]

I'm sorry S.I. but I'm out of this thread.Your attitude toward data ,facts and field experts stinks (IMHO). Facts are facts and if you dismiss them that is your choice but it does not alter the truth.

You put forward a notion that greenhouse gases would override any orbital forcings GW, now this would be a first in the earths long and turbulent history. Where are the facts and data to back up such an assertion? Edited June 3, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Gray-Wolf]

How often has the earth been in a glacial cycle (like our current one) and how did we arrive at our current glacial epoch????

 

What have CO2 levels been like over the past 65 million years and what level were they at when we entered the first of the ice ages????

 

How low did CO2 need to drop before we saw Antarctica first start to build it's ice caps????

 

somehow I think many folk will be smirking right now at your apparent willingness to look a tad uniformed S.I. ........

[Methuselah]

You put forward a notion that greenhouse gases would override any orbital forcings GW, now this would be a first in the earths long and turbulent history. Where are the facts and data to back up such an assertion?

Well, assuming that all the natural forcings have been properly understood, what G-W suggests would seem to be the case. Something is preventing global cooling?

[Essan]

Back in the 70's prior to the current alleged consensus of AGW climate scientist were adamant of an ice age being around the corner,

 

No they weren't.

Based on our understanding of ice ages at the time, it was thought that interglacials normally lasted only around 10,000 years and with the current one having started around 10,000 years ago it suggested the next one was imminent.  Recent cooling (now known to be due to 'global dimming') supported this conjecture.

However, many climate scientists believed that carbon emission derived AGW would prevent such an new ice age starting (even Nigel Calder in his book The Weather Machine, which, as a result of a BBC documentary, popularised the idea of a sudden, imminent, catastrophic new ice age, accepted this) and since then we're learned much more about glacial cycles and now know that a new ice age isn't due to even start for thousands of years (and it takes tens of thousands of years for ice sheets to advance on temperate zones).  Notwithstanding which, there has been a slow decline in temps, especially in Arctic regions, for the past 4-5,000 years (the neoglacial) due to reduced axial tilt: a trend which we would expect, all else being equal, to continue through the 21st century.

As an aside, carbon emission derived AGW isn't the only form of AGW

Edited June 3, 2013 by Essan

[UV-RAY]

Well, assuming that all the natural forcings have been properly understood, what G-W suggests would seem to be the case. Something is preventing global cooling?

Nothing is preventing it Pete as we have only just started the change.

[UV-RAY]

No they weren't.Based on our understanding of ice ages at the time, it was thought that interglacials normally lasted only around 10,000 years and with the current one having started around 10,000 years ago it suggested the next one was imminent.  Recent cooling (now known to be due to 'global dimming') supported this conjecture.However, many climate scientists believed that carbon emission derived AGW would prevent such an new ice age starting (even Nigel Calder in his book The Weather Machine, which, as a result of a BBC documentary, popularised the idea of a sudden, imminent, catastrophic new ice age, accepted this) and since then we're learned much more about glacial cycles and now know that a new ice age isn't due to even start for thousands of years (and it takes tens of thousands of years for ice sheets to advance on temperate zones).  Notwithstanding which, there has been a slow decline in temps, especially in Arctic regions, for the past 4-5,000 years (the neoglacial) due to reduced axial tilt: a trend which we would expect, all else being equal, to continue through the 21st century.As an aside, carbon emission derived AGW isn't the only form of AGW :winky:

Im of that age where I remember all the ballyhoo surrounding an impending ice age and there was more than an handful of scientists who bought into this. As for your comment regarding other forms of AGW, I quite agree.

[Methuselah]

Nothing is preventing it Pete as we have only just started the change.

I'm not trying to be funny. But - what change? 

[Gray-Wolf]

Being 50 I also lived through that period as a quite inquisitive child/young adult and remember no such 'to do' about ice ages? Did we have one 'horizon' programme about it?

 

I do recall endless documentaries about how human beings were trashing the natural world and all the lovely images I was watching would be consigned to history as the animals fell prey to human ecological mismanagement ( due to greed for natural resources ).

 

As such I came away knowing that mankind was doing untold harm to his home.

 

By the 80's this was augmented with climate change, acid rains and Ozone holes.

[4wd]

Were you badly affected?

[ANYWEATHER]

Being 50 I also lived through that period as a quite inquisitive child/young adult and remember no such 'to do' about ice ages? Did we have one 'horizon' programme about it?

 

I do recall endless documentaries about how human beings were trashing the natural world and all the lovely images I was watching would be consigned to history as the animals fell prey to human ecological mismanagement ( due to greed for natural resources ).

 

As such I came away knowing that mankind was doing untold harm to his home.

 

By the 80's this was augmented with climate change, acid rains and Ozone holes.

Aaaggghh, reading through your post gw, Acid Rain, never here about that anymore??? Have they got a new name for it??