A documentary dubbed “The Weather Machine” produced in 1975 – long before NASA fiddled with the data – warned of an impending ice age (10:35), and maintained that the globe is cooling. Hat-tip: reader The Indomitable Snowman.
The documentary attempted and succeeded at presenting the latest on climate change at the time.
Changing climate accepted as normal
It is true that back in 1975 climatologists already knew that the climate behaved cyclically, as evidenced by the ice cores and tree ring sets extracted from the American Southwest.
Climate change back then was known to be a normal, natural phenomenon. Moreover, after 3 decades of temperature decline, scientists indeed were concerned that the globe was cooling at a worrisome rate.
Part 1: Weather Machine. Exiled Czech climate scientist Dr. George Kukla said in the 1970s: “The ice age is now due any time.”
Also, contrary to what was suggested by Michael Mann”s notorious hockey stick chart, the little Ice Age did in fact exist and was clearly evidenced by old historical records from ships, The Weather Machine documentary tells us.
And note that the documentary stated that the Jet Stream also changed its course naturally, just as it does today, and that there was much more to it than just Arctic sea ice extent, on which today some scientists are trying to blame for the frigid winter we are now witnessing.
In Part 2, viewers are told how the ocean cycles have a major impact on the weather cycles, something today that is ridiculously being blamed on trace gas CO2 from human activity.
Little Ice Age warnings…
At the 6 minute mark of Part 2 again we are warned of cooling and the potential of a little ice age, or worse.
Prof. George Denton, University of Maine at Orono, warned we could easily return to Little Ice Age conditions.
Humans may be causing cooling
Later into Part 2 Dr. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin claims that man’s activity may be contributing to the cooling through the “Human Volcano” spewing aerosols into the atmosphere that “blots out” the sun.
Goes to show that scientists back then seemed to know more, or at least they were able to draw far better conclusions about how climate is driven. Today a cabal of activist scientists want us to ridiculously believe it’s all CO2.
Note that if you go to the site where the video can be streamed, there is also a download section where you can download the four segments in a variety of formats (such as MP4).
This makes it of course easier to watch them at your convenience (such as while flying). Also, I’d get copies of this to save – since eventually the green gestapo types will probably find out about this and try to delete it from history.
Kukla, 1972
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1502-3885.1972.tb00145.x/abstract
“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.”
—
National Academy of Sciences, 1975
http://archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit_djvu.txt
“The well-documented warming trend of global climate beginning in the 1880’s and continuing until the 1940’s is a continuation of the warming trend that terminated the Little Ice Age. 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, but there is no consensus with regard to either the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next hundred years. … If the end of the interglacial is episodic in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of unknown timing, although as each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5 percent greater chance of encountering its [the next glacial’s] onset.”
They didn’t and we a civilization also didn’t know anything better or knew more back then. Are you one of those “everything was better in the past” guys?
No, they could not possibly have drawn better conclusions with so much fewer data available. [But in fact, they did. Much less activism and data fraud back then, -PG]
No, they don’t want that. They tell you that this is what best fits the observational evidence. If you don’t share this view – which you obviously do – then come up with better models of how the climate works that must be completely contradicting everything we know and think to be true and voila, you’ll have your Nobel prize in no time.
However, from your belief in cyclical climate and mankind had nothing to do with current warming, you surely have a timeframe for when temperatures must inevitably go down again, have you? So if we just wait for that time to pass and watch how the temperature doesn’t fall like would be expected from such a cyclicality, will you come up with different nonsense how mankind isn’t causing climate change or will you [-snip…childish taunting -PG]
Anny of those scientists would have known 6 or 7 magnitudes more than you know now, seb.
You again just put forward brain-numbed mantra as an excuse, and it really is getting passed a JOKE.
“They tell you that this is what best fits the observational evidence.”
Then they are talking BS !!
CO2 warming DOES NOT FIT any observational evidence.
You have yet to produce one bit of empirical science to show that humans have had ANYTHING to do with any REAL warming
All you have is your mindless yabbering.
“try to understand the physics “
Yes, that would be a very good starting point for you, seb.
Try to get passed junior high level this time.
and try not to post links to rabid anti-science propaganda sites like carbon-briefs, and sks..
It makes you look like a brain-hosed fool.
Here are some nice sources and videos to highlight the issues not addressed by the alarmmists:
High School Climate Change Term Paper for Those Who Don’t Want to Follow the Herd
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/17/high-school-climate-change-term-paper-for-those-who-dont-want-to-follow-the-herd/
Climate Change Global Warming Homework to Piss Off Your Teacher
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/climate-change-global-warming-homework-to-piss-off-your-teacher/
Climate Change Science Fair Project; CO2 and Global Warming
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/global-warming-science-fair-project-co2-and-global-warming/
Nice!
And maybe for advanced placement, see here…
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2017/09/do-infrared-thermometer-sky-temperature.html?m=1
…and here…
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2017/09/climate-change-settled-science.html?m=0
Here is some interesting climate research news from 1958.
https://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/3/
Here is another one for you. From a 1978 TV documentary series ‘In Search of’: ‘The Coming Ice Age’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA
“before NASA fiddled with the data.” Forgive me for belaboring my favorite complaint here. Not only is manipulating or falsifying data by a federal official insupportable, it is also a crime, a felony under federal law.
Section 2071 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the criminal title, states that “ (a) Whoever … with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited … in any public office … of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
The second section, (b) deals directly with custodians of those records: “(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. …”
Sorry to burden these columns with so much legalese, but the plain intent of the statute is make the director of an agency responsible for corrupting the integrity of public data criminally liable.
Does anyone have a sympathetic congressman who might do something about it? I am continuing to notify what seem to be the agencies charged with investigation but with no result. Besides the US Atty Gen., any names?
Nobody “fiddled with the data”. It’s still available in its raw form. Come up with better adjustments or justify why no adjustments are needed. Don’t call the data fake as an easy out of every corner skeptics maneuver themselves into.
I suppose it’s a coincidence that the adjustments have consistently served to cool the past and warmed the present.
For example, in the 10 years between 2008 and 2018, NASA “adjustments” have lowered the 1910 temperature and raised the 2000 temperature by +0.24 C. In other words, there was a +0.45 C difference between the 1910 temperature and the 2000 temperature in 2008. Today (March, 2018), NASA has “adjusted” up the difference between 1910 and 2000 to 0.69 C.
NASA adds 0.24 C of “adjusted” warming to the 1910 to 2000 global temperature trend.
Are you seriously using a graph with the continental US temperature data as an argument for “cooling in the past”?
Have you ever looked at global data including sea surface data? Are you sure that the adjustments generally cool the past and warm the present? How sure are you?
It really is pointless …
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
“Have you ever looked at global data including sea surface data?”
Yep, global land data in the NH shows 1940s about the same temperature as now.
Land data in the SH shows the late 1800s, early 1900s warmer than now.
Satellite data shows NO WARMING apart from El Nino effects which have NOTHING to do with CO2, because CO2 does not cause warming of the ocean or the atmosphere
What sea surface data there is, currently shows cooling in all regions except the Indian ocean.
Any other data shows NATURAL warming started at the end of the LIA, after the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, and nearly all indications are that that NATURAL SOLAR warming is now over, and the planet is headed for a cooling trend.
There is absolutely ZERO evidence that CO2 causes any warming of atmosphere or oceans or anything else.
If you think there is..
THEN PRODUCE IT.
(I expect yet another EMPTY or evasive answer)
All true Kenneth, but pointless.
DNFTT
Of course Kenneth is correct. We know that.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/a-fairy-tale-of-two-ghcn-cirties/
As are you, though some of us don’t seem to have gotten up to speed on that part yet.
Start by writing a clear, concise letter, with clear data, to a skeptic Congressman. Makes sure it does not take more than 1 minute to read.
Well done to whoever dug these up.
I took a sceptical interest in the global warming story for a number of reasons. One was that I am old enough to vaguely remember the cooling scare which never happened, and recall fretting about the word which my infant son would inherit. It was a damn cold Scottish winter at the time.
Since then, I have been able to tell my grown-up grandson not to worry about the forecast warming. Indeed, I told him to welcome it, if it ever showed.
Variable Sun
We do not have a constant sun we have a Variable Sun that moves through cycles like most things in nature. These solar cycles have maximums and minimums of solar storms that create cloud cycles that amplify the lower clouds and make them heaver when our sun is at solar minimum, like now. ………….——————————————————————
In trying to understand the earth’s climate because of a trace gas, we have uncovered part of a much larger complex system of order to our own Milky Way galaxy and beyond. Our variable sun that gives us life in this cold universe goes through many complex cycles of hot and cold temperatures on the earth that we have recorded through ice cores, tree rings and other devices. Every hundred thousand years a very large cycle called a Glaciation moves ice over Toronto a mile high and we can see this also in the earth sciences. Between the Glaciation periods galactic cosmic rays fly through our universe from supernova exploding stars and hit the earth in cycles more or less depending the cycles of our sun. Our sun goes through cycles of changing its North Pole to the South Pole every eleven years. In the middle of this change over there are many electric storms, solar storms that increase the magnetism of our sun and protect us from the many cosmic rays that hit the earth. We are hit with many more cosmic ray particles when the sun is very quiet with very few solar storms at the end of a solar cycle. These cosmic ray particles hit the lower clouds, seed the clouds, amplify the volume and make them very heavy. This amplifies our snow storms, our rain storms and all our weather events while making it much colder at the same time like a small nuclear winter. All this happens because, not unlike nature, our sun is a Variable Star and moves through cycles. ————-
The Weather Machine 1975
by Nigel Calder (Author)
Cover image is there, but poor quality.
This item is only available from third-party sellers on Amazon.
Both hardcover and paper are available.
As John H says, there was a book by Nigel Calder as well as the TV documentary
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Weather-Machine-Nigel-Calder/dp/0140044892
His website is still up.
https://calderup.wordpress.com/
Perhaps this is a good time to repost this Calder article on the Berkeley Earth con game?
https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/hoodwinked-by-berkeley-earth/
OT, after the alarmist PANIC and bed-wetting over a spike slightly less than a spike in 1976,
….Artic temp drops down to long term average.
Will we hear anything about this in the MSM? 😉
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/85817-1.png
Also of note —
Coldest late February night on Germany’s highest peak in over a century (2018)
https://www.thelocal.de/20180227/coldest-late-february-night-on-germanys-highest-peak-in-over-a-century
[…] Read more at notrickszone.com […]
When climate goes hotter or colder, Energy is needed to offset tolerance. This seems like asking for more energy, though! – as a newly circulating thermodynamics thesis proposes.