Isn't a 1970s global cooling warning an example of why we should decrease greenhouse gas emissions?

Question

A few decades ago we were warned of a growing hole in the ozone layer. We responded by reducing CFC emissions, and have essentially solved the problem.

In 1999 we were warned of potential computer crashes due to the Y2K bug. We responded by fixing the computer software and solved the problem.

In the 1970s few scientists warned of an imminent ice age

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

but one crude climate simulation (supported by a computer program witten by James Hansen) showed that if sulfur dioxide emissions continued to increase at the rate they had been as of 1970, they could eventually trigger an ice age.

This was a reasonable conclusion, because the SO2 emissions had been causing global cooling from 1940-1970, but our SO2 emissions peaked in 1980 and have been declining ever since. See pages 12-14 here:

http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf

So again we solved the problem.

Is this not the case for CO2 now?

eric - try reading your own articles in the future.

"Despite successful measures that have stopped production of CFCs, scientists don¹t expect to see the hole significantly reduce in size for about another decade, Newman says. This is due to the long lifetimes of CFCs already in the atmosphere, ranging from 40 to 100 years. Full recovery is expected in about 2070."

And the very minor solar irradiance decrease in the mid-20th century played a very small role in the global cooling at the time. If your explanation were true, we should have seen global cooling from 1980-Present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Answer 1

OK...Eric C pointed out that after speniding whatever sum of money, there was no problem. Just what you're saying so I don't know why he's thinking it's a sign of wated effort.
I still say there is a large enough human population to make a difference. These deniers are making it sluggish, though.

Answer 2

nicely, whilst our SO@ emissions would have top (and acid rain become the bigger concern) one would desire to element out that when Mount St. Helens as an occasion, or mT. Penetubo erupted, they disgorged greater SO2 into the ambience than the finished international did for approximately 10 years. Likewise, with CO2 emmisions the quantity of CO2 made out of the fires presently burning uncontrolled dwarf what industry places out interior the l. a. basin. Your assertion that SO2 emmisions brought about worldwide cooling for 1940-1970 is an occasion of a logical errors of the 1st form--making a correlation the place none exists. as an occasion if one plots the delivery fee drop interior the U. S. between 1950 and 1990 against the decline interior the stork inhabitants--the effect is a ineffective rapidly easy. in case you want to end from this that the stork isn't bringing as many babies be my visitor. England interior the 1st area of the 2d millenium become plenty warmer than that's now, the climate runs in cycles, that's misguided to connect a correlation to a organic flux in a climate cycle. there is not any confusing and incontrovertible data that mans intercession has something to do with warming.

Answer 3

From NASA "Each year, the depleted region in Earth's protective ozone layer over the Antarctic, or "ozone hole," reaches its largest size during a period in September. Data from a NASA satellite are now in, and images created from the data reveal the extent of the hole in 2007 was about average when compared to measurements from the last few decades." http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ozone_2007.html
The same alarmist who are predicting doom and gloom for global warming, were saying around this time we would have an epidemic of skin cancer on our hands if we did not ban CFCs. We do not have an epidemic.
Problem not fixed. Theory wrong, money wasted.

Governments around the world spend billions of dollars to fix the y2k bug. Many countries did not, and did not have any problems. Money wasted.

The sun was responsible for the cooling during the mid century. Sun activity started to decrease at 1940 until the 1960. After that ocean currents were then running negative (la ninas) which was the cause of the cooling.
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/GACV32No1Veizer.pdf

Edit: You said the problem is fixed for the ozone layer. It is not. You are misleading. As for scientists saying CFCs in the atmosphere having a long life span, that is their way of saving face.
Read the whole article by Jan Veizer. He claims that when sun activity does not match temperatures, then ocean currents match temperatures. The ocean currents were running cold after the sun activity peaked in the 1960's. during the nineties and 00's ocean currents are running warm. This explains why temperatures have risen despite sun activity levelling off during the mid 80's.

Answer 4

do you really think that we are solving any of the problems?