Ice Age Alert!


CWolf. actually a LOT of scientists were concerned about the 1960’s-1970’s cooling They published a lot of papers about it.

Here are 285, published science papers on it:

What follows is a list of over 285 papers published during the 1960s, 70s and 80s showing there was a near consensus of an imminent global cooling – a fact that some activist scientists falsely dispute. They should have been far more careful in their review of the literature.



Not sure if you’re just being disingenuous or don’t understand what the word “consensus” means. A significant portion believed that aerosol in the atmosphere would cause more cooling than Co2 would cause heating. I just picked over 6 random papers from your list and you know what?
All six of them state that Co2 causes global temperatures to rise.

They just predict other stronger forces overcoming the Co2 influence.

You must be learning from AS. Post up proofs that agree with me, and disagree with you, lol.

It’s expected that predictions about future temperatures would differ. Someone has to develop and test alternative theories. If everyone in science was right all of the time, they wouldn’t be scientists, they’d be RO posters.


Dude last time you did this? You missed the point. You missed what I said, and what my claim was.

You got the reason I quoted the article wrong, and if you went back and read it, you would have noticed that.

If you’re not following what I’m saying, or if my standpoint isn’t coming across clearly, tell me, I don’t mind having to restate something. I know I get long winded, and confusing with my verbiage. Better you ask that, then pretend I said something I didn’t.


I understood exactly what you were saying. Your article just said a lot more than the very narrow point you were trying to make. You said Mexicans are a tax boon when viewed from one specific angle. And then linked an article which said they are a plus in one narrow way, and net drag when all factors are considered. And they take jobs that would otherwise be filled be citizens.

It’s the same thing with Sun. He says the consensus was imminent global cooling. No, a significant minority thought that aerosol would cool faster than CO2 warmed. But at the time, even the articles predicting cooling in the coming decades said that CO2 was warming, just less quickly than aerosol would cool. And the majority opinion was warming. And by the early 1980s, all of the speculation on aerosol was dead.

So 40 years ago, you had two competing theories. The majority position of global warming. And the minority position of global cooling. The global cooling people were proved wrong, and were persuaded to the current overwhelming consensus that the planet is becoming warmer due to CO2.


No, that wasn’t the point. Not with that last article I’m referring to. The point of that article, was their contribution to the economy.

Because if their contribution to the economy is large, and far away larger than their fiscal cost, then that implies that you can fix the problem, by restructuring welfare.

The money to pay for it exists, the immigrants are generating it, so you just need to develop a better method to collect it.

Or… limit welfare. Either way, welfare needs reform.



you wrote this I was replying to:

“Not by scientists, you don’t. That was never something they said was coming in our life times. It’s expected to be more than 10,000 years from now. Which is short in a geological sense, but not in the sense of it impacting any of us, or anyone we’ll ever know. That was true then, and continues to be true. That prediction has not changed. It is completely separate from the view that the planet is currently warming at a rapid pace. Which is also a view that has been consistently held since the 1950s.”

Then I post evidence that they were saying it was already coming now,as the very first paper on the list specifically states:

“1. Kukla, 1972 Climatic changes result from variables in planetary orbits which modulate solar energy emission and change seasonal and latitudinal distribution of heat received by the Earth. Small insolation changes are multiplied by the albedo effect of the winter snow fields of the Northern Hemisphere, by ocean-atmosphere feedbacks, and, probably, by the stratospheric ozone layer. The role of volcanic explosions and other aperiodic phenomena is secondary. The immediate climate response to insolation trends permits astronomic dating of Pleistocene events. A new glacial insolation regime, expected to last 8000 years, began just recently. Mean global temperatures may eventually drop about 1oC in the next hundred years. A refinement of the Milankovitch theory in terms of the lunar orbit and more data on solar periodicities are needed for reliable long range predictions.”

How did you miss this?


Right, and your article just said exactly what I said in the post.

Most of the articles I browsed over in your 285 list, are talking about aerosol. Studies that predict a cooling from aerosol and ice age studies aren’t usually the same topic. There is still a consensus today that there is an ice age coming. But it will be in about 10,000 years.

The view that the planet would cool, was always a minority view. The view that the planet was warming due to CO2 was consistently the majority position. It was the majority position in 1970. It was the majority position in 1980. It was the majority position in 1990. The broad consensus among climate scientists over the past half-century has been that CO2 is causing the planet to become warmer.

There are still academic papers today that are published and predict that temperatures will either cool, or the rate of increase will dramatically slow. These papers are also in the minority.



you still miss the point of the papers. They were saying now (1970’s) and into the future for global COOLING based on what they see in the data. You quibble on what data they use is besides the point. There were a lot of people who thought a cooling future was happening right in their eyes.

Your reading of the papers sure miss easy to spot quotes as this one from paper #1:

A new glacial insolation regime, expected to last 8000 years, began just recently. Mean global temperatures may eventually drop about 1oC in the next hundred years.”

From the NAS:

"National Academy of Sciences, 1975 “Starr and Oort (1973) have reported that, during the period 1958-1963, the hemisphere’s (mass-weighted) mean temperature decreased by about 0.6 °C. … Since the 1940’s, mean temperatures have declined and are now nearly halfway back to the 1880 levels. … There seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate … [T]here is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next hundred years. … [A]s each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5 percent greater chance of encountering its [the next glacial’s] onset.”


From the NOAA:

"NOAA, 1974 “Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world. … Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes.”
“[T]he average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950’s, Iceland’s hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. … Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world’s hungriest continent. … Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an ‘ice age’.”


Hansen 1981:

"Hansen et al., 1981 (NASA) “[T]he temperature in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970, a time of rapid CO2 buildup. … Northern latitudes warmed – 0.8°C between the 1880’s and 1940, then cooled – 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970.”


Meanwhile it appears you are another one who falls hard for the “consensus” paradigm,which is meaningless because it is reproducible research that drives science.

You wrote,

“The view that the planet was warming due to CO2 was consistently the majority position. It was the majority position in 1970. It was the majority position in 1980. It was the majority position in 1990.”

This is a fine example of shibboleth,since it imparts ZERO information and is profoundly anti science,since consensus is a POLITICAL method for driving policy. Not only that you provide ZERO evidence for your claim,while I produced 285 that talks about a cooling trend in the 1960’s-1970’s and into the future.

Since 1979, the ONLY time it warmed was during an El-Nino phase,otherwise zero to a cooling is observed. No visible CO2 warm forcing effect shows up since outgoing IR flow from the planet exceeds what postulated warm forcing CO2 is calculated to produce.

No warming, 1979-1997


No warming from 2002 to 2015

Not only that the IPCC reports since 1990 has always stated a .30C PER DECADE warming trend BASED on the AGW hypothesis. But it has been about half that rate all along and slowing down since 2001.

I posted the Logarithmic effect of CO2,you completely ignored it,how come?

Now you also wrote this,which exposes your ignorance of long term cooling trend which started around 3,000 BC:

“There is still a consensus today that there is an ice age coming. But it will be in about 10,000 years.”

No we have been sliding towards glaciation period,with a few glaciers forming that didn’t exist before as of around 2,000 years ago.

Background link



when will you ever address post #33 and 39?

What I find fascinating is that warmists continually ignore several fatal blows to the AGW conjecture.

Per Decade warming trend -FAIL
Troposphere hotspot -FAIL
Less snow/more rain,freezing rain -FAIL

the entire AGW edifice is a house of cards,since it is a MODEL driven pseudoscience,with ZERO test ability in it.Imagine watching ignorant warmists drooling and rutting over climate models that runs to year 2100 and call it good science,when it is not testable. It fails a part of the Scientific Method completely!

Shall I go on?


"Flohn, 1974

“Since about 1945 [to 1974], global cooling, on a scale of -0.01°C/yr [-0.3°C total], has reversed the warming trend of the first decades of our century. … A large majority of the participants of the symposium concluded that the present warm epoch has reached its final phase […] – the natural end of this interglacial epoch is ‘undoubtedly near’.”



Glad you brought up these dubious IPCC Models. So, yes, let’s talk models.

Are the models predicting doom and gloom (a la Al Gore) based on LINEAR theories or NON-LINEAR theories?

In predicting weather patterns, a lot of “scientists” use linear equations (Ax + By = C) in their modeling. Weather is NOT linear (as most professional meteorologists will tell you). When modeling weather with linear equations, it’s notoriously inaccurate . . . which is why a lot of predictions are screwed up. The prediction is rain, and all we see is sunny skies, or vice-versa.

Weather patterns follow chaos theory, which is NON-LINEAR. An example of chaos theory is the familiar, “If a butterfly flaps it’s wings in China, there is an effect in Africa.” (Ax + By = C is NOT accurate, because that “butterfly” was not included, and even if it was used in a linear equation, the results would still be inaccurate.)

In the weather, we have huge variables, and most are NON-LINEAR, not the least of which is that “butterfly”. Chaos theory is still in it’s infancy, which is why you’ll often see predictions couched in terms of percentages . . . “a 70% chance of rain.” These guys are hedging their bets because they know that “butterfly” can screw with their predictions.

OTOH, Mr. Gore casts the IPCC predictions as a certainty.

What’s wrong with that picture?

So, in evaluating Global Warming, one has to look at the method of modeling. Most of those models use LINEAR equations, which are full of flaws. Many of the models try to combine both linear and non-linear characteristics . . . which, as you would expect, produces even MORE dubious results.

And even if a Global Warming model has used chaos theory, it is still inaccurate at this time.

Bottom line, if the modeling was based on linear equations, I would throw out the conclusion entirely. And if the modeling was based on the infant chaos theory, I still would look on the conclusions as dubious.

And CLIMATE is much more complex than WEATHER (the two are different). Climate prognostication is still a very inexact science. Much too inexact to use as the basis for making global economic decisions. Of course, the guy who invented the Internet has another agenda . . . and he’s succeeded in pulling the wool over the unwashed masses, who will believe anything a supposed “expert” says.

Meteorology is NOT a linear science. IOW, models of weather and climate cannot follow simple linear equations to predict weather or climate. That’s why weather and climate prediction is notoriously unreliable. Weather and climate follow a complex set of variables, and lend themselves more to chaos theory (non-linear) than linear theory.

Is a LINEAR model sufficient to make absolute predictions on a NON-LINEAR system? Why? And is it sufficient to declare the outcome a certainty and base economic decisions on that?

IPCC . . . people . . . frequently cite a “trend line” as absolute “proof” of AGW. They are taking LINEAR REGRESSION (which is what a trend line is) as a PREDICTOR OF A NON-LINEAR SYSTEM. That’s IPCC science?


A fine comment Bob!

While it is true that weather and even climate is chaotic in nature, there are PATTERNS found in it to allow for discerning what causes changes in them. There are the known Solar cycles imprint on it,as well as the Bond events showing up it. The Solar changes to climate changes are very easy to see in the data,despite getting it from past chaotic weather data and proxy data.

Linear regression is an example on one dimensional approach,which is why those climate models are so far off,even when they “tune” them.

This LINK shows a growing body of research showing Solar effects dominate the climate:

100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate

"Proven by thousands of temperature datasets, the earth’s climate fluctuated cyclically in the past, and there’s an overwhelming body of evidence showing a close correlation with solar activity and other powerful natural factors. If the IPCC had truly examined past temperature developments and compared them to solar data, they’d have seen there is something remarkable there.

Yet in the IPCC AR5, Working Group 1 takes only a cursory look at solar activity and its possible impacts on climate in IPCC AR5 before simply dismissing the sun altogether. The Earth’s sole supplier of energy, the sun, and all its dynamism, in fact gets only a couple of pages in a 2200-page report, about 0.1%. That alone is a monumental scandal.

What follows is a list of papers I found in just a few hours that the IPCC should have taken a much closer look at instead of just dismissing. The list of course is not complete."

It is possible to find cyclic patterns even in chaotic weather and climate since they recur over and over.

Here is a fine post at Energy Matters about Bond events:

Bond Cycles and the Role of The Sun in Shaping Climate

“Bond cycles are defined by petrological tracers from core samples in the N Atlantic that link to the pattern of drift ice distribution. They provide a record of shifting ocean currents and winds, in particular periodic weakening of the North Atlantic current and strengthening of the Labrador current. These cycles shape what we perceive as climate change in the circum North Atlantic realm, for example the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. They leave a small mark on global average temperatures that are difficult to resolve in the proxy temperature records”


There are also Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles too:

Here is an easy to follow the 30 page PDF,composed mostly of charts

The main point is that cyclic patterns can be seen in the data,even if it is of chaotic nature.


I was in public school in the 1970’s and EVERY “science” class was teaching that aerosol in cans and Freon used in air conditioning was going to send us into an ice age, the same ridiculous panic that we see today from the Warmist religion was hyper propagating the “Human Caused Hole in the Ozone layer”.

There was no opposing view being taught and you never heard an opposing view in the mainstream media, they all followed like Lemmings just as they do today.

Now we are treated to history revision that claims this was just an insignificant minority view, interesting to those of us who read the printed schoolbooks that were selling that lie.

We got the same “science” based lies about running out of landfill space and the horrors of nuclear power generation, in the 1980’s they invented the lie that spotted owls were endangered and we were destroying the atmosphere by logging timber.

Science became “science” in the 1970’s and it has continued until today, the only difference is people are starting to figure out that these “conclusions” are created to perpetuate political agendas NOT out of respect for science.

What more proof do you need than the claims of “consensus” that the propagandists always make? When did “consensus” replace the scientific process?

NOTHING that is false becomes true via consensus and NOTHING that is true becomes false via consensus, pointing to all the Lemmings who are pointing back at you in a big circle is not science.