Ice age questsion for the sceptics?

Question

In 1971 climate scientist Dr. S. I. Rasool and S. H. Schneider stated that the earth was heading into an ice age in a article published in Science Magazine (Science 9 July 1971:Vol. 173. no. 3992, pp. 138 - 141). I often read answers here posted by the armchair climate sceptics stating that because we are not in an ice age today that climate scientists don't know what they are talking about. My question is, based on the article listed above which is the source of the ice age argument, why do you think Rasool and Schneider were wrong about predicting the ice age?

Answer 1

Well I'm not a skeptic, but I have a pretty good idea why they were wrong.

In 1971 the planet was nearing the end of a cooling period which was caused primarily by human sulfur emissions. The sulfur emissions were accelerating rapidly with no end in sight. Based on the accelerating emissions rates at the time, it was entirely possible that the cooling would have continued and we would eventually have entered an ice age if we had done nothing about those emissions.

Soon thereafter, varoius countries including the US passed Clean Air Acts. Since 1980 our sulfur emissions have actually decreased, as you can see here on pages 12-14:

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

So the main reason the prediction was wrong was probably because the scenario on which they based the prediction did not happen. Similarly, if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, we will avoid the worst predictions regarding global warming and climate change.

On top of that, climate models in the 1970s were very crude. Climate science has grown by leaps and bounds since then. As Trevor (the only climate scientists on Yahoo Answers) said recently, climate scientists have learned more in the past 7 years than in all the years before then. Climate models are now run on supercomputers. There is no comparison between predictions in the 1970s and predictions in the 2000s.

Answer 2

Why were they wrong? When it comes to understanding nature all scientists are wrong, it is just a matter of how wrong are we about the specific study of interest. Rosool and Schneider were very wrong primarily because they did not have enough data to attempt to formulate a working theory about climate. Even though today we have decades worth of satellite data on atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric temperature and Solar output levels as well as numerous proxies that show trends of temperature,atmospheric composition and ocean temperatures that date back thousands of years, CO2 has never been a driver for climate. But this time and only this time, the climate is different, CO2 is in control. Could you blame an armchair climate skeptic for being skeptical?

Answer 3

People mistake "Theories" for facts. The global cooling theory was a valid theory just like the GW due to CO2 is a valid theory. Theories are conclusions based on some logical argument using some data collected and assumptions made. CO2 driven GW is just that.

The world is flat was a theory accepted by most scientists at that time. There have been many valid theories over the years concerning global climate changes.

Answer 4

You ask the question as though all skeptics purchase into some ice age hoax interior the 70's, that's flat out incorrect. So your question is consistent with fake premises and therefor can't be replied and make your attempt to ridicule skeptics incredibly laughable. And it does no longer something to quell particularly reasonable questions and doubt approximately guy-made climate replace theories. Why politicize this? does no longer you incredibly comprehend the actuality approximately climate replace? i comprehend I do. And whilst climatologists fudge archives so as to perpetuate a shaky thought it rises very extreme and reasonable doubts with regards to the entire ingredient.

Answer 5

There is one indisputable rule in physics and that is "Nature never lies", i.e., experimental data rules. If one constructs an hypothetical model and that model is incapable of predicting experimental outcomes or reproducing observations, then the model is qualitative, at best, or pointless, at worst. No matter what, data rules.

So, discard the models and go to the data. The Vostok ice core data (reference) shows that global temperatures vary semi-cyclically over time. It also shows that changes in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have never preceded changes in global temperatures. Further, it shows that global temperatures have plummeted in the presence of the highest concentrations of CO2.

Additionally, if one focuses on the left-most portion of the referenced plot (the "present"), the earth began warming from the most recent glaciation about 20,000 years ago. As is consistent with all other warming periods, carbon dioxide levels began to increase shortly after the temperatures started to rise.

These observations prompt some conclusions:

1. The earth will have another ice age; it is a natural occurrence.
2. Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has no effect on global temperatures.
3. Elevated atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide do not inhibit global cooling.
4. Carbon dioxide levels have been rising for approximately 20,000 years.
5. The current AGW models are expressly inconsistent with these observations and, therefore, they fail the most important test---they claim that nature does lie.
6. Since the AGW models are incapable of reproducing the historical data, they are, at best, qualitative and, at worst, pointless.

Answer 6

I would say that accurately predicting the next ice age is beyond the capability of our current science. The researchers saw a short term cooling trend and presented the theory that the world was cooling.

Any theories about why they were wrong would be speculation.

There is nothing unscientific about speculation it's part of the process of discovery. It should be recognised for what it is though, not used as articles of faith.

Answer 7

All projected climate change is based on predictive models and is only as accurate as the model used. We can't predict the whether accurately a week in advance. Only our ego's allow us to make predictions and they aren't very accurate. Both the "ice age" and "global Warming" advocates are just beating their own drum and crying "My model is right and yours is wrong"
Calculate the amount of ice required to melt and raise the oceans three feet. Floating ice does not count because it causes no rise in the ocean levels.

Answer 8

Predictions have no place in science. Leave fortune telling to the soothsayers and mystics.

Science depends on facts. Only when facts are missing, do mystics try to fill them in with guesses. No one can guess the future.

Answer 9

I think that septics jump on anything that will go with their argument. They should realize that just because one article suggested an ice age it may not necessarily be true.