G'day all,

This is a major news article published as a major story by Time magazine some time ago. It is not all that widely quoted because it was before the global warming reporting really got going but I think it is relevant to our discussions here, even if it is a news article. At the time it was a major article and shaped the opinions of many. I've deliberately changed the odd word for emphasis and will point out the changes at the end, but it should be interesting anyway. Oh, and I?ve added Paragraph numbers.

Quote:
1. In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1994 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly hot and dry spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually warm winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

2. 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 warmer 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 runaway warming.

3. Telltale signs are everywhere ?from the unexpected change to thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the northward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has risen about 2.7? F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly decreased by 12% in 1991 and the decrease has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally covered by snow in summer; now they free year round.

4. Scientists have found other indications of global warming. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude winds ?the so-called circumpolar vortex?that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of warm air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms?the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

5. Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere?thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.

6. Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the warming trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that CO2, dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be allowing more and more sunlight to reach and heating the surface of the earth.

7. Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the warming trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

8. Whatever the cause of the warming trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and warm the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to a very hot age within only a few hundred years.

9. The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of a very hot age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries?the U.S., Canada and Australia ?global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
OK, the changes, the heading of this article was ?Another Ice Age?? and the whole article has had ?cooling? changed to ?warming? and other minor changes to align it with that difference. As far as possible I have not changed the article otherwise.

So how familiar did the article sound? How close was it to articles on global warming and how right was it? Actually some of the similarities are downright spooky. Increasing tornados are mentioned. Droughts, floods and various records are mentioned as well as if they obviously prove the point being made. ?Serious? and ?Catastrophic? are used to describe the outcome. Man is blamed. Solar activity does not correspond with the changes. The need for much greater study and, basically, much more funding, is pointed out as if it is patently self evident. Actually it worked for about three years but because Climate studies had almost no funding up until then and very few people actually held qualifications in the field, there was just no way to increase the funding to levels such as today. As soon as the place got much hotter, the funding dried up. So, according to the solar experts, that is about to happen again. I bet this time the funding will not dry up. The amounts are just too huge and too many people?s careers and income, not to mention very big parts of environmental groups? budgets and even anti-global warming groups for that matter, for those advocating global warming as the biggest issue the earth has faced to just slink away. It will get rather ugly imho, if it happens.

Many people dismiss the ?global cooling? scare in the 1970s as something that was not well supported. This was when I was studying Climate Science and I can tell you that it was anything but a minor issue. It was a very big deal, with news articles in major papers often every day. The grain harvest in the USSR failed five years in a row so the Hare quote at the end of the article came true. There was much more than three years in a row. The whole thing came to a sudden and crashing end because of confluence of solar cycles that matched the well known 11 year cycle with a previously unknown but quite steep solar cycle of a little greater than 200 years. It was 1979-1980 in the Northern Hemisphere that really got hot.

The reason why a search in Google does not bring up all that many news references for global cooling is very convenient if you wish to dismiss this scare as being not widely publicised or having a ?consensus? of climate scientists (and in the 1970s you could put all the world?s climate scientists into a tiny rural town?s meeting room and still have room for a bake sale to raise funds for them). It is simply that the news articles were written before computers invaded the newsroom and these articles are available on micro fiche or in bound old copies but not in electronic form.

It was ironic but my very first published article was a piece on global cooling that suggested that global cooling might not be as certain as was being made out because the data to establish climate change was extremely difficult to obtain. So my lack of respect for comparable data for climate studies goes back a long way. I just assumed, until I had to look at the data again, that with the utilisation of computers and the advancement of other technologies that improvements would have been made in the data set so that they would be able to show trends. My assumptions were wrong.

Details of changes, just for completeness:]

Date of Article: 24 June 1974

Changes:

Sentence 2: ?1974? changed by 20 years to ?1994?.
Sentence 3: ?chilly and wet? changed to ?hot and dry?
Sentence 4: ?on the other hand? removed.
Sentence 5: ?? a series of chilly? changed to ??a series of warm?
Paragraph 2: ?gradually cooler? changed to ?gradually warmer?
Para 2 end: ?another ice age? changed to ?runaway warming?
Para 3: ?persistence and thickness? changed to ?change to thickness?
Para 3: ?southward? changed to ?northward?
Para 3: ?mean global temperature has risen about 2.7? F? changed to ??dropped??
Para 3: ?pack ice ? increased ?? changed to ??decreased?? and ?increase? changed to ?decrease?.
Para 3: ?1971? changed by 20 years to ?1991?
Para 3: ?Baffin Bay ? totally free of snow in summer ? now covered all year round? changed to ?covered ? now free?
Para 4: ?cooling? changed to ?warming?
Para 4: ?polar winds? had ?polar? removed; ?cold air? changed to ?warm air?, ?polar? removed a second time.
Para 4: References to more and more violent tornadoes, no change at all!
Para 5: Sunspot paragraph not changed at all
Para 6: ?cooling? changed to ?warming?
Para 6: ?CO2,? added; ?blocking? changed to ?allowing?; ?from reaching? changed to ?to reach?.
Para 7: ?cooling? changed to ?warming?
Para 7: Ah, the needs more research (i.e. money). Does this sound familiar at all?
Para 8: ?cooling? changed to ?warming?
Para 8: ?decrease? changed to ?increase?
Para 8: ?another ice age? changed to ?very hot age?. OK, so it wasn?t a great change but I didn?t want to change the meaning of the article other than changing cooling to warming.
Para 9: ?very hot age? used again.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness