Time 1977

På 1970-talet rådde stor enighet bland klimatforskarna att den globala medeltemperaturen hade sjunkit ända sedan 1940.

Omslaget på Time Magazine från 1977 är berömt – även då var den kommande katastrofen människans fel.

Officiella och respekterade källor som NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research), Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences och National Academy of Sciences rapporterade samma data, som också återgavs i National Geografic:

Global Cooling konsensus

Det lät faktiskt väldigt mycket som idag – mer torka, översvämningar, stormar och annat onormalt väder – fast det handlade om hotande kyla, inte hotande värme:

Returning to harcher state 1974

Men historien har sedan dess skrivits om av NOAA och NASA-GISS (nedan).

Enligt NCAR (ovan) var det kallare 1970 än 1900, men nu ser den officiella temperaturkurvan från NOAA och NASA-GISS ut så här:

Global Temperature

Den nästan 40 år långa avsvalningen har förvandlats till en platå med oförändrad temperatur.

De som vill försvara den globala uppvärmningen har i sin tur ”avslöjat” att det är en myt att det var särskilt många forskare som trodde på global avkylning på 1960- och 1970-talen. John Cook, som även ligger bakom den undersökning som jag inledde med och som påstås visa att det råder 97% konsensus bland klimatforskare om att människan är huvudorsak till den globala uppvärmningen, driver bloggen Skeptical Science, där han refererar en undersökning som påstås visa att det var mycket få klimatforskare som talade om global avkylning 1965-1980, och att de flesta redan då varnade för global uppvärmning:

Most cited is a 1975 Newsweek article The Cooling World that suggested cooling ”may portend a drastic decline for food production”: ‘Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.’

A 1974 Times Magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

‘When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.’

However, these are media articles, not peer reviewed scientific papers. Does a consensus on global cooling emerge from the scientific literature?

Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It’s a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970’s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn’t surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson’s paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

Men detta är ett falsarium!

Till att börja med: Vem är William Connely som John Cook hänvisar till?

Enligt brittiska Telegraph är han en riktig lurendrejare, som kunnat utnyttja sitt inflytande över Wikipedia för att censurera information om klimatet:

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.“ (Telegraph, 2009)

Kenneth Richards, som driver bloggen NoTricksZone, har kontrollerat uppgifterna i Connolley et al:

As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the 1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period.  If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the “non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.” Längst ner på sidan listar jag alla dessa forskare.

Här är en översikt över forskningsläget publicerad i Science 1975:

Global Cooling Science

Och några samtida tidningsklipp:

Alla trodde på global avkylning

Global cooling tidningsklipp 2

Global Cooling tidningsklipp

The complete list of 285 Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence papers from the 1960s to 1980s  can be found using the below links:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3