long term 5 yrs+

[claurice]

I asked this question on the regional forum but was suggested to repost here...  I know it is tough to make predictions, especially about the future, as the saying goes. I just wanted to ask opinions on what the long term future might hold for SE winter weather, like NC/VA. It seems the jet stream is wavier resulting in both higher and lower temps than avearge. Do you think this will continue or something else? what about annual snowfall? Thanks

[Vice-Regent]

I've studied the 500mb charts and the current pattern should have yielded upper 20s for highs in our region versus the low-mid 40s. Everything has been in our favor for deep cold if you know how to filter out the noise you can see the global warming signal. 

Next 5 years? It could be rather extreme if we observe another strong el nino. The warming would have been so obvious that no noise filtering is needed to detect the trend.

[snowlover91]

58 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

I've studied the 500mb charts and the current pattern should have yielded upper 20s for highs in our region versus the low-mid 40s. Everything has been in our favor for deep cold if you know how to filter out the noise you can see the global warming signal. 

Next 5 years? It could be rather extreme if we observe another strong el nino. The warming would have been so obvious that no noise filtering is needed to detect the trend.

Strongly disagree. We are heading into a solar minimum cycle not seen since the Little Ice Age and there is extensive research that indicates the solar cycles have a direct correlation with global temperature cycles up and down. Furthermore, without turning this into a global warming debate, there is much scientific research casting doubt on whether the warming cycle we’ve seen is natural or man made. In fact in the 1970s the fear was global cooling, look it up. 

 

I say all this to say I think 2020-2050 could be some interesting years as the earth begins a global cooling cycle due to reduced sunspot activity. 

[Vice-Regent]

Solar minimums increase poleward troposphere transport over the pacific and thus produce regional warming over the Southeastern conus. Compared to the radiative forcing of GHG gases the net cooling is 0.1-0.2C (which is not conservative). You will be surprised - I guarantee it. Delaying action over a solar minimum makes the problem worse in the long-run.

[AfewUniversesBelowNormal]

We go through teleconnection phases too. Since 2009, it's -AO/-EPO/-PNA. 1998-2007 was very +EPO, etc. This current phase would correlate to lower arctic sea ice but I think that is way overly simple, although easily believable and will perhaps continue. The big news is the 588 500mb day, which shattered old records of 581, and 2 days ago the Aleutian ridge was also record breaking strongest. It depends, honestly I think we are going through a time where there are a lot of dimensional splits happening, On the extreme end, the Earth is stagnant and the whole pattern crawls north. On the other end is more extreme low pressures, hurricanes, etc. I think it's a good question. A study of 500mb heights does show that the 1950s were similar to now and El Nino's like 1997-8 and 2003-4. My guess is we see more of the same -AO/-EPO/-NAO (which favors cold where people live) until there is big news or event because we are past the point of it not being noticed and these teleconnectors favor cold (a good analogy is printing more money to bail out debt). A global reversal to more cold does not seem likely until people withdraw in cities and in general (I think the Trump presidency helps this point). I think in many dimensions there has been a polar shift already (government produced)

[AfewUniversesBelowNormal]

1 hour ago, Vice-Regent said:

I've studied the 500mb charts and the current pattern should have yielded upper 20s for highs in our region versus the low-mid 40s. Everything has been in our favor for deep cold if you know how to filter out the noise you can see the global warming signal. 

Next 5 years? It could be rather extreme if we observe another strong el nino. The warming would have been so obvious that no noise filtering is needed to detect the trend.

Disagree, the Pacific looks bad for cold. However, on the 594 ridge few days, the EPO was -2 which is cold 70% of the time. Big deal. It could have gone much higher and in some places it was the highest 500mb height day until May

The El Nino in 2015-2016 was stagnant. It would be very interesting to see a classic strong El Nino now

[bdgwx]

10 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

Strongly disagree. We are heading into a solar minimum cycle not seen since the Little Ice Age and there is extensive research that indicates the solar cycles have a direct correlation with global temperature cycles up and down. Furthermore, without turning this into a global warming debate, there is much scientific research casting doubt on whether the warming cycle we’ve seen is natural or man made. In fact in the 1970s the fear was global cooling, look it up. 

 

I say all this to say I think 2020-2050 could be some interesting years as the earth begins a global cooling cycle due to reduced sunspot activity. 

In regards to global cooling of the 70's refer to this AMS publication. THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Keep in mind that the solar activity has been in a secular decline for 60 years now and the atmospheric global mean temperature and oceanic heat content both have increased significantly. I acknowledge that the Sun could be entering another grand minimum, but it's not going to be enough to cancel out the net anthroprogenic components of climate change. It might suppress the warming some, but it won't stop it.

[snowlover91]

7 hours ago, bdgwx said:

In regards to global cooling of the 70's refer to this AMS publication. THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Keep in mind that the solar activity has been in a secular decline for 60 years now and the atmospheric global mean temperature and oceanic heat content both have increased significantly. I acknowledge that the Sun could be entering another grand minimum, but it's not going to be enough to cancel out the net anthroprogenic components of climate change. It might suppress the warming some, but it won't stop it.

I put little stock into anything NOAA or the NWS issues on subjects like this, even NASA. There are quite a few reasons why I don’t but I won’t get into that because it is off topic, but I would expect such a response as what they portrayed in that AMS publication. Take a look at the dozens and hundreds of newspaper articles published during that time and then form a conclusion. There’s a lot more evidence to weigh out there than what NOAA says currently vs what was reported in the 60s and 70s. I’ll link a few pictures showing what I mean and an article from NOAA in October 1974 addressing global cooling, straight from the horse’s mouth. It’s funny how they forgot they wrote this isn’t it?

Most forecasts of worldwide food production have been based on the assumption that global weather will stay about the same as it has been in the recent past. But it has already begun to change.

In the Sahelian zone of Africa south of the Sahara, the countries of Chad, The Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, and Upper Volta are enduring a drought that in some areas has been going on for more than six years now, following some 40 previous years of abundant monsoon rainfall. And the drought is spreading—eastward into Ehtiopia and southward into Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, Tanzania, and Zaire.

Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world.

Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes. A drop of only one or two degrees Centigrade in the annual average temperature at higher latitudes can shorten the growing season so that some crops have to be abandoned. [...]

...the average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950's, Iceland's hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. [...] 

Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world's hungriest continent. [...]

Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an "ice age."

 

Global warming scientists have been wrong for a long time now. I’m still waiting for snow to be nonexistent like many said would happen by 2016-2020. I’m still waiting for the polar ice gaps to be gone entirely. Take a look at the attached graphs to see how the “reported” vs “measured” numbers are manipulated and how the graphs published 50-60 years ago show something much different than ones today. 

 

 

[chubbs]

2 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

I put little stock into anything NOAA or the NWS issues on subjects like this, even NASA............

After that start, I put little stock in your comment.

[chubbs]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/03/14/rapid-arctic-warming-and-melting-ice-are-increasing-the-frequency-of-blizzards-in-the-northeast-study-finds/?utm_term=.c1e581537325

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02992-9

[etudiant]

Was there not a serious snowfall in 1888 in Boston?

[chubbs]

9 hours ago, etudiant said:

Was there not a serious snowfall in 1888 in Boston?

Rain in Boston, NY the big I95 hit.

[claurice]

i did not mean to start a climate debate, just wondering if future winters will be colder with more snow. According to the Wash Post article linked above, at least in late winter, the answer is probably yes.

[chubbs]

19 minutes ago, claurice said:

i did not mean to start a climate debate, just wondering if future winters will be colder with more snow. According to the Wash Post article linked above, at least in late winter, the answer is probably yes.

This is an area of active research. We are in a climate transition phase and have natural variability, so there is no definitive answer. Winters are getting warmer in E US, despite the periodic cold snowy spells. One important factor the warm spells in winter are getting warmer, this February being a good example. Just speculation, but, if we continue on this path, eventually increasing warmth will win out reducing snow. I'd expect this to start in the southeast and work its way north with time.

[snowlover91]

16 hours ago, chubbs said:

After that start, I put little stock in your comment.

Then you would do well to continue reading since NOAA themselves said in October 1974 we were in a global cooling phase as well. It’s amazing they said in the AMS publication it’s a “myth” but in 1974 they said it was real. Which NOAA article is true?

The problem with people today is they don’t read or search for the truth; they only read that which agrees with their preconceived views on issues like this. 

[Vice-Regent]

Long-term is not 5 years. I suggest you vacate this forum as soon as possible. @snowlover91

[fountainguy97]

1 hour ago, Vice-Regent said:

Long-term is not 5 years. I suggest you vacate this forum as soon as possible. @snowlover91

I would love to hear your opinion... unfortunately all you did was attack snowlover.... which is not a great argument.

 

I’m also fairly certain that this forum encourages all opinions.. hate to see it turn into a bunch of little back biters. 

 

Snowlover has a legitimate position. And a cooling period is totally possible.

 

Snowlover said 2020-2050. My math says that’s more than 5 years.. 

[snowlover91]

1 hour ago, Vice-Regent said:

Long-term is not 5 years. I suggest you vacate this forum as soon as possible. @snowlover91

If you read my original post, I said 2020-2050 which is a good deal of time in the future. The OP never specified a time frame, and 2020-2050 is definitely a long term span into the future. I would love for you to provide some facts and thorough research as I have to back up your opinion, but it seems you can't so the only option you're able to present is a personal attack hence the "weenie tag" you have been given. Do some digging and be willing to look at BOTH sides of the debate and you might be surprised with what you find.

And again back to my original point. In 1974 NOAA published a report saying global cooling was real. In 2008 they say in an AMS journal publication that the 1970s global cooling was a myth made up. Which report is true, and why? No one seems to have an answer for this question.... or why we cooled significantly from the late 40s into the 70s based on data from NOAA and other resources that published info at that time...

[Vice-Regent]

4 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

If you read my original post, I said 2020-2050 which is a good deal of time in the future. The OP never specified a time frame, and 2020-2050 is definitely a long term span into the future. I would love for you to provide some facts and thorough research as I have to back up your opinion, but it seems you can't so the only option you're able to present is a personal attack hence the "weenie tag" you have been given. Do some digging and be willing to look at BOTH sides of the debate and you might be surprised with what you find.

And again back to my original point. In 1974 NOAA published a report saying global cooling was real. In 2008 they say in an AMS journal publication that the 1970s global cooling was a myth made up. Which report is true, and why? No one seems to have an answer for this question.... or why we cooled significantly from the late 40s into the 70s based on data from NOAA and other resources that published info at that time...

Aerosols

[Vice-Regent]

Air pollution may have masked mid-20th Century sea ice loss

 

February 23, 2017

 

American Geophysical Union

 

Humans may have been altering Arctic sea ice longer than previously thought, according to researchers studying the effects of air pollution on sea ice growth in the mid-20th Century.

 

     

 

Humans may have been altering Arctic sea ice longer than previously thought, according to researchers studying the effects of air pollution on sea ice growth in the mid-20th Century. The new results challenge the perception that Arctic sea ice extent was unperturbed by human-caused climate change until the 1970s.

Scientists have observed Arctic sea ice loss since the mid-1970s and some climate model simulations have shown the region was losing sea ice as far back as 1950. In a new study, recently recovered Russian observations show an increase in sea ice from 1950 to 1975 as large as the subsequent decrease in sea ice observed from 1975 to 2005. The new observations of mid-century sea ice expansion led researchers behind the new study to the search for the cause.

The new study supports the idea that air pollution is to blame for the observed Arctic sea ice expansion. Particles of air pollution that come primarily from the burning of fossil fuels may have temporarily hidden the effects of global warming in the third quarter of the 20th Century in the eastern Arctic, the researchers say.

These particles, called sulfate aerosols, reflect sunlight back into space and cool the surface. This cooling effect may have disguised the influence of global warming on Arctic sea ice and may have resulted in sea ice growth recorded by Russian aerial surveys in the region from 1950 through 1975, according to the new research.

"The cooling impact from increasing aerosols more than masked the warming impact from increasing greenhouse gases," said John Fyfe, a senior scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada in Victoria and a co-author of the new study accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

To test the aerosol idea, researchers used computer modeling to simulate sulfate aerosols in the Arctic from 1950 through 1975. Concentrations of sulfate aerosols were especially high during these years before regulations like the Clean Air Act limited sulfur dioxide emissions that produce sulfate aerosols.

The study's authors then matched the sulfate aerosol simulations to Russian observational data that suggested a substantial amount of sea ice growth during those years in the eastern Arctic. The resulting simulations show the cooling contribution of aerosols offset the ongoing warming effect of increasing greenhouse gases over the mid-twentieth century in that part of the Arctic. This would explain the expansion of the Arctic sea ice cover in those years, according to the new study.

Aerosols spend only days or weeks in the atmosphere so their effects are short-lived. The weak aerosol cooling effect diminished after 1980, following the enactment of clean air regulations. In the absence of this cooling effect, the warming effect of long-lived greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide has prevailed, leading to Arctic sea ice loss, according to the study's authors.

The new study helps sort out the swings in Arctic sea ice cover that have been observed over the last 75 years, which is important for a better understanding of sea ice behavior and for predicting its behavior in the future, according to Fyfe.

The new study's use of both observations and modeling is a good way to attribute the Arctic sea ice growth to sulfate aerosols, said Cecilia Bitz, a sea ice researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle who has also looked into the effects of aerosols on Arctic ice. The sea ice record prior to satellite images is "very sparse," added Bitz, who was not involved in the new study.

Bitz also points out that some aerosols may have encouraged sea ice to retreat. Black carbon, for instance, is a pollutant from forest fires and other wood and fossil fuel burning that can darken ice and cause it to melt faster when the sun is up -- the opposite effect of sulfates. Also, black carbon emissions in some parts of the Arctic are still quite common, she said.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170223124327.htm

[snowlover91]

1 minute ago, Vice-Regent said:

Aerosols

So then was the global cooling in the 40s-70s real or not? NOAA said in 1974 it was, in 2008 they said it was a myth. Which report do you believe? Both came from the same agency but are diametrically opposed.

 

Also your personal attacks are not necessary and detract from the discussion as well. I find that people often resort to that when they have nothing better to say or offer... Sad really.

[chubbs]

2 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

Then you would do well to continue reading since NOAA themselves said in October 1974 we were in a global cooling phase as well. It’s amazing they said in the AMS publication it’s a “myth” but in 1974 they said it was real. Which NOAA article is true?

The problem with people today is they don’t read or search for the truth; they only read that which agrees with their preconceived views on issues like this. 

The 74 reference  is an old old denier talking point with 2 major logic flaws: 1) Misrepresentation - climate scientists generally expected imminent warming in the 1970s not cooling, 2) Impossible expectations - demanding that everything NOAA (or anyone else) said in the 1970s was perfect in order for us to trust them now is an impossible expectation.

I do agree with your last point. You obviously seek material that fits your point of view.

[Cobalt]

19 hours ago, chubbs said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/03/14/rapid-arctic-warming-and-melting-ice-are-increasing-the-frequency-of-blizzards-in-the-northeast-study-finds/?utm_term=.c1e581537325

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02992-9

Sorry if I'm intervening, but I can add on to this statistic a bit. Do you know where I can find monthly/yearly totals at Philly, NY, Boston? Thanks!

[Cobalt]

1 minute ago, Cobalt said:

Sorry if I'm intervening, but I can add on to this statistic a bit. Do you know where I can find monthly/yearly totals at Philly, NY, Boston? Thanks!

By add on I mean my idea is that I believe that this in turn makes for big winters, and especially in southern airports, big winters weigh 10 year totals more than they do before. The "less snow, more Blizzards" theory certainly does seem interesting

[snowlover91]

16 minutes ago, chubbs said:

The 74 reference  is an old old denier talking point with 2 major logic flaws: 1) Misrepresentation - climate scientists generally expected imminent warming in the 1970s not cooling, 2) Impossible expectations - demanding that everything NOAA (or anyone else) said in the 1970s was perfect in order for us to trust them now is an impossible expectation.

I do agree with your last point. You obviously seek material that fits your point of view.

I have poured through data on both sides of the argument so your personal attack is misguided.

Let's answer some questions then regarding this issue. You say "climate scientists generally expected imminent warming in the 1970s not cooling" yet that is a broad statement that anyone can paint without a source. What sources do you have to back this up? Generalizations without sources hold no credibility. I can link you to plenty of articles written in the mid to late 70s from newspapers quoting various scientists that indicate the global cooling was a concern to scientists of different countries and fields. I provided a few already in an earlier post and can provide plenty more, there are tons of newspaper headings, articles, and other things written about it.

Impossible expectations? My point was that the data in the 1970s measured indicated cooling from the late 40s to the 70s. Now when you look at charts generated for that same time period you don't see cooling. What data was changed to change to show the observed cooling as neutral (no warming or cooling average)?

Here's something else to consider. With urbanization and the well documented heat island effect, what's to say the rise in temperatures experienced in recent years isn't partially affected by the heat island effect? How do we get an accurate comparison when the temperatures in the past didn't have this type of influence as widespread as most official NWS stations do now?

Regarding the long term timescale, we have a limited data set to work with regarding the climate. How do we know all these cycles are not influenced by natural ocean changes and other phenomenons not known or that little is known about? Science is always uncovering new data and often revised as new information comes to light. We have reliable data that goes back no more than 100 years, and on a scale of even a few thousand years, that's a tiny data set to make conclusive and set viewpoints with such limited information available.

[chubbs]

9 minutes ago, Cobalt said:

Sorry if I'm intervening, but I can add on to this statistic a bit. Do you know where I can find monthly/yearly totals at Philly, NY, Boston? Thanks!

Not sure about detailed data. NWS (local office) and Northeast Regional Climate Center (see link below) are possibilities

http://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/

[chubbs]

54 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

I have poured through data on both sides of the argument so your personal attack is misguided.

Let's answer some questions then regarding this issue. You say "climate scientists generally expected imminent warming in the 1970s not cooling" yet that is a broad statement that anyone can paint without a source. What sources do you have to back this up? Generalizations without sources hold no credibility. I can link you to plenty of articles written in the mid to late 70s from newspapers quoting various scientists that indicate the global cooling was a concern to scientists of different countries and fields. I provided a few already in an earlier post and can provide plenty more, there are tons of newspaper headings, articles, and other things written about it.

Impossible expectations? My point was that the data in the 1970s measured indicated cooling from the late 40s to the 70s. Now when you look at charts generated for that same time period you don't see cooling. What data was changed to change to show the observed cooling as neutral (no warming or cooling average)?

Here's something else to consider. With urbanization and the well documented heat island effect, what's to say the rise in temperatures experienced in recent years isn't partially affected by the heat island effect? How do we get an accurate comparison when the temperatures in the past didn't have this type of influence as widespread as most official NWS stations do now?

Regarding the long term timescale, we have a limited data set to work with regarding the climate. How do we know all these cycles are not influenced by natural ocean changes and other phenomenons not known or that little is known about? Science is always uncovering new data and often revised as new information comes to light. We have reliable data that goes back no more than 100 years, and on a scale of even a few thousand years, that's a tiny data set to make conclusive and set viewpoints with such limited information available.

First link has all the data, methods and software - so anyone is free to make their own series or perform whatever analyses they want. Skeptics typically cherry pick the warm adjustments, to make a point, but per chart below the net effect of all adjustments is cooling. While land adjustments generally warm, ocean adjustments tend to cool. Below are a few other links if you are serious about learning:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/

https://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/a-guide-to-global-temperature-program.html

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/p/homogenization.html

 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

So then was the global cooling in the 40s-70s real or not? NOAA said in 1974 it was, in 2008 they said it was a myth. Which report do you believe? Both came from the same agency but are diametrically opposed.

 

Also your personal attacks are not necessary and detract from the discussion as well. I find that people often resort to that when they have nothing better to say or offer... Sad really.

I suggest you follow your own advice and read the 1974 referenced NOAA article. It's quite clear that there is a lot of uncertainty and some climate scientists were predicting cooling and others warming. 

 

The quotes that were posted are cherrypicked misrepresentations of the article. In short, they are a lie. A disgusting, deceitful, hateful and pathetic lie.

Reading the full article you will find quotes like the ones below. Also, the article is mostly about food supply and appears to be written by somebody without a lot of expertise in the area. For example the writing style somewhat blurs millenial scale slow changes in climate from glacial to interglacial and smaller more abrupt changes like the little ice age in the late 19th century and the warming in the early 20th century. They quote Murray Mitchell predicting warming, but neglect to mention that that prediction was based on human emissions of Greenhouse Gases. The author mentions the prediction but sort of glosses over it, even though Mitchell was a leading expert and most scientists already realized that human emissions of greenhouse gases would warm the climate (it had been known for decades already that greenhouse gases like CO2 and water vapor are a principle control of the earth's climate). 

"Many other scientists disagree. J Murray Mitchell of the EDS a world authority on climate change comments "We observe these trends and we know they are real. But we can't know the central tendency, we can't know how long they will last." Mitchell himself suspects the warming trend will reverse itself rather soon."

"In summary, the current cooling trend may be but a temporary climate variation, it may lead to another Little Ice Age (a brief cold period around in the late 19th century) or it may spell the end of the current interglacial. We do not know. We may never know."

"It would take thousands of years to develop a full fledged ice age."

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20160630234737/http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/journals/noaa/QC851U461974oct.pdf

 

 

So are you going to be part of this despicable cherry picked lie? Or are you going to take your own advice, read, and learn how scientists were already predicting warming in the 70s based on human CO2 emissions?

There was more uncertainty in the 70s and especially prior to the 70s it is true. Part of this is a lack of awareness and communication between scientists. They all had different theories based on different climate factors but the science just wasn't that good. Also, one of the biggest differences is if you go back prior to the 70s human CO2 emissions just weren't that significant yet. It was conceivable at the time that other factors would be more important. By the 70s the consensus and awareness of the problem was developing and by the 80s it was a well established theory.

 

 

I would also suggest actually reading the full AMS article (not just the abstract): https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

 

 

I and others actually have read extensively on the topic from peer reviewed journal articles past and present and it really is a despicable lie to say that there was a consensus of cooling in the 70s. There was more uncertainty than today. There was some bad science. Some science that wasn't looking at the big picture yet. But it was known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and many if not most leading experts were predicting a warming world based off human CO2 emissions.

 

 

[chubbs]

Recent graphic from Brian Brettschneider. Note that use of median tends to emphasize typical instead of big snow years. Looks like winter storm track is shifting N.

[bdgwx]

On 3/15/2018 at 2:40 PM, snowlover91 said:

So then was the global cooling in the 40s-70s real or not? NOAA said in 1974 it was, in 2008 they said it was a myth. Which report do you believe? Both came from the same agency but are diametrically opposed.

 

Also your personal attacks are not necessary and detract from the discussion as well. I find that people often resort to that when they have nothing better to say or offer... Sad really.

Everybody agrees that broadly speaking the global mean temperature declined between the 40s and 70s. That's not what that 2008 publication is refuting though. There was a pervasive myth that began in the 70's that this cooling would not only continue but it would lead to a full fledged ice age. This myth was largely the result of media coverage which wasn't grounded in science. It was grounded in them wanting to sell a product. And stories about ice ages made them money. The irony is that even that is disputed because cooling stories always seemed to be juxtaposed with warming stories. But, the situation was completely different in the academic community where real science takes place. The number of pro-warming publication was always out pacing the number of pro-cooling publications. And in terms of citations the pro-cooling citations began plateauing around 1974.