{"id":363,"date":"2006-10-27T06:20:19","date_gmt":"2006-10-27T10:20:19","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=363"},"modified":"2010-08-04T22:43:18","modified_gmt":"2010-08-05T03:43:18","slug":"global-cooling-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2006\/10\/global-cooling-again\/","title":{"rendered":"Global cooling, again"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kcite-section\" kcite-section-id=\"363\">\n<p><i>The ice age is coming, the sun\u2019s zooming in \/ Engines stop running and the wheat is growing thin \/A nuclear error, but I have no fear \/\u2019Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river<\/i> (chorus from <a href=\"http:\/\/londonsburning.org\/lyr_london_calling.html\">London&#8217;s Calling<\/a>, by Strummer\/Jones, 1979).<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>These lines rather sum up the confused media response in the 1970&#8217;s (the sun zooming in would *not* be causing an ice age; sea level rise would be associated with warming); engines stop running mixes up the oil crisis. At that time (and particularly the early to mid 70&#8217;s) climate science was ambiguous about predicting the future, although the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wmconnolley.org.uk\/sci\/iceage\/nas-1975.html\">1975 NAS report<\/a> summarised the state of the science pretty well: that we didn&#8217;t know enough to make useful predictions and needed to study more. And since that time we *have* studied more, with the result that we have some firm conclusions pointing to warming.<\/p>\n<p>But, we&#8217;ve <a href=\"http:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2005\/01\/the-global-cooling-myth\/\">done this all before<\/a>. So whats new?<\/p>\n<p>Not much, but <a href=\"http:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php?p=97\">Senator Inhofe<\/a> has been speaking about climate change again, and predictably enough dredged up the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wmconnolley.org.uk\/sci\/iceage\/misc-non-science.html\">1975 Newsweek article<\/a> headed &#8220;A cooling world&#8221;. Which appears to have prompted Newsweek to <a href=\"http:\/\/www.msnbc.msn.com\/id\/15391426\/site\/newsweek\/\">re-examine their old article<\/a>. They concede that the article was <i>so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future<\/i> but defend themselves with <i>In fact, the story wasn&#8217;t &#8220;wrong&#8221; in the journalistic sense of &#8220;inaccurate&#8221;<\/i>, which seems rather self-serving. Whilst the article does manage to reference the NAS report, it does so in a minor paragraph &#8211; the headline and most text implies cooling and severe problems with the food supply. Inhofe raises other various stories from way back (see <a href=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/stoat\/2006\/10\/inhofes_nyt_refs.php\">here<\/a> for more) but fails to point out that a few stories <a href=\"http:\/\/www.businessandmedia.org\/specialreports\/2006\/fireandice\/fireandice.asp\">culled from over a century<\/a> doesn&#8217;t compare at all with the media attention nowadays paid to global warming.<\/p>\n<p>The lesson to take from this is the obvious one: not to take your science stories from the mass media if you can possibly find better sources. Which nowadays are readily available: the IPCC report for a solid review of the state of the science; and RealClimate for more topical stuff.<\/p>\n<!-- kcite active, but no citations found -->\n<\/div> <!-- kcite-section 363 -->","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The ice age is coming, the sun\u2019s zooming in \/ Engines stop running and the wheat is growing thin \/A nuclear error, but I have no fear \/\u2019Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river (chorus from London&#8217;s Calling, by Strummer\/Jones, 1979).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,24],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-363","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-climate-science","7":"category-reporting-on-climate","8":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/363","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=363"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/363\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4782,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/363\/revisions\/4782"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=363"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=363"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=363"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}