Wildly exciting, no? No: its just the Global Cooling wars, part n. This one is Lamb, H. H. Is the Earth’s Climate Changing? The UNESCO Courier: a window open on the world; Vol. XXVI (8/9), 17-20, and its the latest "killer" reference added to Poptech (tagline: the blog that's too frightened to let a Stoat post. Still, its nice to know I'm dangerous, it would be a bit worrying if the denialists stopped censoring me).
But anyway its a new thing to me, so lets look. Its not in the magnum opus because its not a real paper. What does Lamb have to say? Firstly, "For the past 30 years the temperature of our planet has been steadily dropping" (although that may have been the subs). Not quite true, but not too wrong for something written in 1973. But that isn't the interesting bit, the interesting bit is the predictions of the future. Which seems to be not the articles main focus. It concludes with a less than ringing:
All these events have raised an anxious demand for ultra-long-range forecasting of climate, which calls for intensified effort towards understanding of the atmosphere (and its interactions with the ocean) and for further reconstruction of the facts of the past climatic record.
Yes, its the familiar "more research needed", which was indeed the correct conclusion in 1973. Next?
A few year's later in H.H Lamb, "Climatic History and the Future", Ist Ed. 1977, second Ed. 1984, Lamb was to write: "It is to be noted here that there is no contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting....for many thousands of years."
[There is also http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/lamb-1982.html which has some similar material -W]
WUWT has raised the bar . While its comment policy forbids ad hominem commentary, its latest designation for those it bans is persona non grata
Maybe we should send Tony a demarche?
Poptech. Just a WUWT wanna be.
Today's the day to submit articles to Willard explaining that since CND spent the fifties blaming climate change on nuclear tests , all subsequent climate change should be blamed on the watermelons success in banning them.
There's a new cooling-comment-bot out there, 5000+ hits for this one, which I first came across at Scientific American's blog:
> nuclear tests ... watermelons success in banning them
Ah, that wasn't watermelons -- it was the electrical grid people.
Remember? the mutual high altitude saber-rattling "tests" by the US and USSR around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis revealed the unexpected results of just one or two explosions, wiping out technology wholesale. The agreement on the test ban followed soon after they figured out nobody was apt to win the planned war.
[Thanks for that. I hadn't seen that before - all the bombs I'd seen were the traditional near-ground ones. Its rather scary but also rather lovely -W]