Repubs like to talk about predictions of an 'Ice Age' in the 70's

[TheFarseer]

What was that all about? What was the science behind that? What happened to prove that idea wrong? Why was that wrong and now Global Warming is right? I AM NOT trying to poke holes in Global Warming. I am trying to understand something that I wasn't around for and have a better response to talking points I hear from time to time.

[AngryAmish]

1. in the 70s there was a fear of an ice age

There were some really bad winters.

[shadowknows69]

2. It was looking like it in '77

n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

5. I remember the blizzards and the bitter cold that winter...

I lived about 120 miles east of Buffalo, but that winter was a BITCH. Well, not really a bitch - we got about 10 days off from school. ;)

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Some cold winters, plus the work of Wallace Broecker

Broecker was the scientist -- a polymath in climatology, oceanography, and a number of other earth sciences -- who first supported the idea that oceanic currents (specifically the Gulf Stream) were major heat-transport systems. Today, we know them as thermohaline currents. Broecker theorized that the weakening or loss of the North Atlantic thermohaline currents could cause ice ages, and such weakening was observed in the early 1970s. We're also seeing it happen now, but this time, it's much more intense; an amazing amount of the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic has stopped, especially off Scandinavia, England, and the west coast of Europe.

The Earth's climate, of course, is far more complex than just a single thermohaline current and a degree Celsius of warming, but the press likes to simplify things to the point where absurdity makes more sense than the news. In the 1970s, major climatic oscillations were starting -- in fact, the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s was probably one such early oscillation. The paleoclimatic proxy record -- ice cores and tree rings and fossils and such -- verify this environmental "wobble". It's normal, natural, and unfortunately, it indicates that we have given our climate a big push, right at the wrong time.

--p!

[stevedeshazer]

4. Sure, and back then we listened to eight-track tapes

No internet, no cell phones, stagflation, Richard Nixon amd Gerald Ford.

I'm pretty sure we have a little better idea thirty years later.

But, hey.

[Cerridwen]

6. At least part of the confusion can be contributed to a misquote

by the, wait for it...Washington Post.

1974 and 1972 National Science Board

The Washington Post reports that in 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation, stated:

During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.

This statement is correct (see Historical temperature record) although the Washington Post quotes it with disapproval. The Post says the Board had observed two years earlier:

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age.

This quote is taken quite out of context, however, and is misleading as it stands. A more complete quote is:

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . . (emphasis added to show where confusion was created)

There is much more about "global cooling" and the issues surrounding it at this link with additional links in the body of the document to official studies from the time.

There is also much research showing that global warming may lead to global cooling/freezing. Here is a link to another site which explains how that scenario may/will play out.

Though I'm afraid none of this will help you with responses to "talking points" as these require some understanding of complex issues rather than sound bites and black or white thinking.

I think the short answer is, global warming leads to an environment in which weather patterns are so disrupted as to cause global freezing.

[ovidsen]

7. Here ya go!

From Time Magazine - June 24, 1974

...As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, 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.

http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

You might want to tell any necon acquaintances who trumpet this "global cooling" scare as proof that science has it's head up it's ass, that 32 years ago our satellites and computers could only crunch a small fraction of what they can crunch today, and that while "global cooling" was quickly discredited, the idea that Global Warming is a serious threat has been with us for at least 10 years and grows more conclusive every day. The evidence that supports Global Warming does not span three decades, as the article above cites for "global cooling", it spans hundreds of thousands of years.

[zbdent]

8. Probably one of the "doctors" who was trotted out by the tobacco industry

years back when the industry trotted out every doctor who could be bought to say "Well, we think that the issue of lung cancer being caused by smoking cigarettes needs more study. It's inconclusive ..."