NASA Scientists Predicted a New Ice Age in 1971

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
  • Bookmark and Share

This seems destined to be ignored by today's climate change obsessed media: Scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies - the very organization now presaging gloom and doom at the hands of global warming - predicted a new ice age back in 1971.

Think this will be a focus of tonight's evening news broadcasts?

Regardless of the answer, the Washington Times wonderfully reported Wednesday (emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.

The Post archives do indeed identify the existence of such a piece, with the following preview:

The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says that...

The Times piece continued:

The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen's at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that "in the next 50 years" - or by 2021 - fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas."

It turns out the Post was referring specifically to an article published at the journal Science that day, which was written by Rasool and S. H. Schneider.

Science archives identified the following abstract of the piece entitled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate," and indicated the authors were from "Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration" (emphasis added):

Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

How marvelous. Yet, 36 years later, this same organization is predicting a planetary cataclysm at the hands of global warming.

Which one of this agency's warnings should we heed?

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Call me crazy

I have something of a theory on the irrational liberal belief in catacylismic global warming. I believe they are aware, on some level, that we are a few years away from a third world war. They can sense the destruction that lies ahead, but not the means.

I just love it when a plan

I just love it when a plan comes together. On the one hand, CO2 decreases temp, on the other hand it increases the temp.  

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

I'm sure that by 2020.

I'm sure that by 2020. When we're well into the next cool phase and ready to start warming again. NASA and Hanson will again notice we're headed for another Ice Age caused by man induced something. And be cooking the books and screaming about the end of the world. 

Too predictable.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

He had it right the first

He had it right the first time.  Global Cooling is on it's way, once the weather stations with the urban heat island effect are taken out of the data set, we in all probability will have proof positive of a negative temp trend of a similar if not greater degree per year than the libs were proclaiming the end of the world.  We already have it with 1934 as being the warmest year in the US.  The whole southern hemisphere has shown no warming.  

dscott's postulate:  The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.

OMG!!!

It's worse than anyone thought. We are walking a knife edge between the aerosols cooling the planet and the CO2 warming the planet! If we change just one little bit of what we are doing right now, we could plunge over the side into a climatalogical cataclysm!

We have to get the word out immediately! We have to change NOTHING or risk total annihilation!!!



The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com

}}---> Change nothing c5

You mean put Congress in charge of it?

~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~

Don't try this at home...

Although this is a lovely article, if you bring this point up to an AGW believer (or the temperature drop from the 40's to the 70's), they'll tell you we have better science now, better and more satellites, GCM's, etc., and pooh-pooh it.

I however laugh with delight at the AGW hysterics' notions over the years.

I am kind of looking forward

I am kind of looking forward to the next man/evil U.S caused crisis/catastrophe. AGW is looking old and passe and will hopefully join the dustbin of liberal catastrophes of the past (Amazon Rain Forest,Acid Rain, Ozone layer, Nuclear winter, Global cooling, Ebola, Super Flu, Alar in apples,DDT etc, ad nauseum ad infinitum). I wonder what their fertile/feeble minds will come up with next time?

Funding

Anything to keep the funding coming.  In a crisis, othing sells like fear and ignorance.  If there is no crisis, you'd better create one or else you might find yourself out of a job. 

*Argue for your limitations and sure enough you will achieve them.

Global Warming is just the

Global Warming is just the latest cause de jour. Liberals always have to have a cause. When one peters out they just invent a new one. It doesn't matter if it is directly opposite to a cause they previously expoused. Liberals wake up each day and shampoo their brains, hence they can do this.

By the way, has anyone heard a peep lately about acid rain, ozone holes or any other of the liberal Chicken Littlisms lately? All you ever hear about is Global Warming this -- Global Warming that.

PT

PT - may I steal these for my list? ;-)

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.