If Global Warming was predicted 130 years ago, as one commenter states, how come 97pct scientists in the 70 were predicting an Ice Age?

This was a comment on another question by a contributor that doesn't make sense: "No, Global warming was predicted about 130 years ago. It was discussed further about 90 years ago." Life magazine of January 30, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.” To those who scoff at the 97%. You are probably right. I was just having fun with your modern day 'consensus , which is a farce. However, to those who do not believe that many of these same scientists who now prescribe Global Warming, including Gore, Hansen and Ehrlich, as as unaware as a rock. I am 77 years old and I remember those years. Do you understand that? I lived through those years. And now you want to change history by saying it isn't so. You are suffocating in your own ignorance. Now to educate you youngsters here is what Wikipedia has to say about Hubert Lamb, a leading scientist with the CRU back in the 70s: " He was known as “the ice man” because of his view that global cooling would lead to a future glacial period within 10,000 years with some abrupt cooling phases occurring "within one to two thousand years".[6]:368 However he also acknowledged that global warming could have serious effects within a century." Ha! Ha! Read it and weep. And thank me for the education


Well, let's put this into historical context. In the 1960s and 70s, there were scientists looking at modelling the climate of our planet, and there appeared to be two solutions to the equations. One was a 'snowball Earth' where the climate was stable with the planet entirely frozen and the other was the sort of climates we observed. There was a lot of interest in why one solution seemed to be the one nature prefers. There were questions about whether ice ages were the result of a partial shifting between the solutions, and what mechanisms and feedbacks might be in operation. This should be seen in the context of research at the time regarding chaotic systems which people were getting interested in due to the availability of cheap computing power. Add to this the observation that we were pumping out large amounts of aerosols which cool the planet, and some incomplete temperature measurements suggesting a cooling of the Earth, and some theorized that we might be heading towards an Ice Age. Others disagreed and suggested our CO2 emissions would warm the Earth. This is how science often works - you have some data, a set of theories, but you have conflicting conclusions drawn depending on interpretation at the time. So what did scientists do? Well, the first thing was they started sharing data from around the globe through the World Meteorological Organisation, thanks to those cheap computers. This allowed them to build up a much better picture of global temperatures. They designed satellites and ground-based experiments to measure global temperatures, to check the wavelengths being emitted into space, to look at albedo, to measure concentrations of gases in the atmosphere, smog, aerosols (CFCs for example) and so on. The point is, we had two completing theories. They were tested with further measurements, and one of them (an imminent ice age) was found to be false. So, the numbers of people supporting a theory is irrelevant. What matters is whether the theory fits the data. I don't understand why this should surprise anyone since this is how science has operated for 300 years. Contradictory theories are proposed, tested, and those that work are kept, and those that don't are discarded. It means we can have more confidence now, some 40 years later, that the planet is warming due to our CO2 emissions. What do skeptics expect? That scientific theories are never wrong? If that's the case, ye should go back to school and study the scientific method ...


They weren't. To be honest, I don't think most scientists then were thinking about long term warming or cooling, but studies have shown more scientists were worried about warming back then than cooling. Your 97 percent number is purely poppycock. I can show you a meteorology textbook published back then that actually talks about global warming from anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Some scientists back then thought that cooling was possible from atmospheric aerosol pollution, and in fact atmospheric aerosols have probably masked some of the warming that we would have seen. Those aerosols are a deadly pollutant, though, and luckily in the developed countries they have largely been cleaned up, although they're still quite bad in Asia. I'm not sure why you keep beating this dead horse--I guess you either failed to read or failed to understand the answers the countless previous times this very question has been asked.


97%? Wow, it must be a freeing feeling to not have any integrity, and just invent stuff without any concern for whether it's true or not. This is what propaganda peddlers do, not truth-seeking scientific skeptics. Why not be better than that?


They weren't. Only a minority of scientists ever predicted an ice age. Mostly those who diluted the warming power of carbon dioxide. And, air pollution was a legitimate problem.


False premise; 97pct scientists in the 70 were NOT predicting an Ice Age. You have been corrected many times over, but you keep repeating the same lies. A times reporter back then ignored the (far more numerous) science papers that predicted warming. There were legitimate concerns about aerosols. When Mt. Pinatubo exploded, James Hansen predicted a cooling pattern, verifying (by 1995) computer models of aerosol effects. Late last year the Trump White House released a report that states that global warming will cost the US economy 500 billion a year by the end of the century. But why do you lie so often Sagebrush? According to Jesus, false testimony comes from the sinful desires of the heart and makes people unclean. (Matthew 15:18-19) What are your sinful desires?


they did NOT predict an ice age.Life magazine exagerated.

Grundoon: https


Obi Wan Knievel

Global warming wasn't even invented until the 1980's. Prior to that, scientists (many of the same scientists that now scream about global warming, in fact) were worried about global cooling. There was no prediction 130 years ago about global anything. Nobody even started thinking about that stuff until the industrial age happened, and back then their only fear was running out of coal.


Scientists? No, Environmental political Activists that happen to be University faculty or government employees touting PHDs in Math or physics circle jerking each others reports/findings in their government department boards and at UN panels to try to influence Environmental policy such as the Paris agreement that Obama signed that has done nothing but increase the cost of living and doing business Yes, CO2 lights up red at a certain frequency cause of its pass/absorb/refract rate at that frequency(about same frequency body heat tempatures emit) but that's because it absorbs red light at that frequency, its not because it is "absorbing heat"....in fact CO2 is actually a refrigerant class gas in it rapidly expands when exposed to heat and drops the temparesin the area as a result...tus some political activities arguing for taxes and regulation on coal and oil to prevent to much co2 turning he earth into a co2 powered refrigerator (CO2 was main refrigerator in decompression refrigeration way before freon was made,still used for blast freezing and making dry ice by rapid decompression)