ArticlePDF Available

Global Cooling: Science and Myth

July 2010
Weatherwise THE BEAUTY(4):24-31

July 2010
THE BEAUTY(4):24-31

DOI:10.1080/00431672.2010.490166

Authors:

Jason M. Vogel

University of Washington Seattle

No caption available

…

Figures - uploaded by Jason M. Vogel

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Jason M. Vogel

Content may be subject to copyright.

by Jason M. Vogel and Brian Lazar

WEATHERWISE

■

JU LY / AUGUST 2010

GLOBAL COOLING:

Science and Myth

ISTOCKPHOTO/JODIECOSTON

WWW.WEATHERWISE.ORG

■

WEATHERWISE

orried about climate change?

Have no fear, the planet is

getting colder at least ac-

cording to some. This is more

than speculation by skep-

tics: According to the World Meteorological

Organization, global average temperature spiked

in 1998 and has been in a cooling trend since

then. Sure, 2008 was the 10th-warmest year on

record since 1850, but if climate change is re-

ally happening, then shouldn’t 2008 have been

warmer than 1998? After all, greenhouse gas

concentrations in 2008 were at an all time high.

If you work in the ﬁelds of climate or weather,

chances are you have heard this argument before.

Global cooling has re-

ceived a lot of attention

recently, in the press as

well as in scientiﬁc and

political circles. While

thousands of scientists

diligently study climate

change, a backlash has

developed that attempts

to contradict the con-

sensus of organizations

such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), the National Academy of

Sciences, the American Geophysical Union,

and the American Meteorological Society. This

backlash does not simply contend that these sci-

entiﬁc organizations and the thousands of sci-

entists that populate them are wrong, but that

they actually have everything backwards. These

skeptics say that we are not in a period of warm-

ing global temperatures, but, in fact, face an im-

minent period of global cooling—one that may

already have begun.

The idea of global warming burned itself into

the American consciousness in 1988. NASA sci-

entist James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that

year may have been the tipping point, but the

American public and the American

press had already been softened up

considerably by the ozone hole

in the ozone. The discovery

of the ozone hole in 1985

by the British Antarctic

Survey and the sudden

realization that human-

kind could radically alter

the planet’s atmosphere

changed the way that hu-

mans thought about the en-

vironment forever. If millions

of people using aerosol spray cans could create

a hole in the earth’s protective ozone layer and

expose all of humanity to increased cancer risks,

then surely all of the pollution pumped out of

smokestacks and tailpipes could pose global en-

vironmental problems as well. By 1990, however,

the public and press frenzy that accompanied

Hansen’s testimony was widely viewed as over-

blown. Congress decided to pump new money

into climate research, and scientists have been

investigating the potential problem ever since,

with the vast majority of scientists asserting, with

ever greater conﬁdence, that mankind is warm-

ing the planet through deforestation and our

emissions of greenhouse gases from cars, smoke-

stacks, and landﬁlls.

Concurrently, a small

but committed cadre of

scientists, politicians,

pundits, and interest

groups has been levying

attacks at the scientiﬁc

consensus. These sci-

entists, led by S. Fred

Singer, professor emeri-

tus of environmental

science the University of Virginia, held their own

International Conference on Climate Change in

2008 and twice in 2009, leading to the formation

of the Nongovernmental International Panel on

Climate Change (NIPCC), which released the

2008 report Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules

the Climate. In his preface to the report, Singer

states: “On the most important issue, the IPCC’s

claim that [temperature increases are very likely

due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentra-

tions], NIPCC reaches the opposite conclusion—

namely, that natural causes are very likely to be

the dominant cause.”

The 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac contains an

article by climate change skeptic Joseph D’Aleo

titled “Is Global Warming on the Wane?” in

which he states: “We at the Almanac are

among those who believe that sun-

spot cycles and their effects on

oceans correlate with climate

changes. Studying these and

other factors suggests that

a cold, not warm, climate

may be in our future.” That

same year, Washington Post

opinion columnist George

F. Will wrote a February 15,

2009, editorial on climate

change that concluded, “Real

“

These examples

merely scratch the

surface of climate

change skepticism

”

Image of largest Antarctic ozone hole

every recorded (September 2006).

NASA

WEATHERWISE ■ JU LY / AUGUST 2010

global cooling and sparking concerns in the 1970s

among some scientists, members of the press, and

decision-makers that the earth could be headed

into a new ice age. Many of these early climate

researchers were geologists who had spent their

careers puzzling over the mysteries of ice ages:

Why did they happen, what triggered them, and

how long did they last?

While some people jumped to the conclu-

sion that the earth was headed into another ice

age, most were extremely careful to nuance their

claims and observations, acknowledging that cli-

mate is hard to understand and predict. The the-

ory of global cooling received brief prominence in

the early 1970s due to media reports, two record

cold winters, consequent political attention, and

observed cooling over the previous few decades.

Most scientists, however, rejected the idea that

global cooling would continue and perhaps lead

to another ice age in the immediate future, as sci-

entiﬁc understanding of atmospheric chemistry

and physics improved and because temperatures

started warming as many scientists had projected.

calamities [the economy] take our minds off hy-

pothetical ones. Besides, according to the U.N.

World Meteorological Organization, there has

been no recorded global warming for more than a

decade, or one-third of the span since the global

cooling scare.” These examples merely scratch

the surface of climate change skepticism. Other

prominent examples include Senator James

Inhoffe’s minority Web page for the Senate

Committee on Environment and Public Works

and Michael Crichton’s 2004 best-selling novel

State of Fear.

What Is Global Cooling?

The term global cooling has been used to refer

to discrete cooling trends in global average tem-

perature that may last on the order of decades, and

also to a scientiﬁc theory positing the earth’s de-

scent into the next ice age. Because of this varia-

tion in usage, the speciﬁc meaning of global cool-

ing has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Between the 1940s and the 1970s, global aver-

age temperatures cooled, constituting a period of

GLOBAL COOLING: CONCEPTUAL HISTORY AND SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT

Global cooling refers to a decrease in the average surface

temperature of the Earth on the order of decades or longer. Global

cooling and the descent into a new ice age is highly likely on the scale

of hundreds to thousands of years due to natural cycles, such as the

intensity of solar radiation and small changes in the Earth’s orbit around

the sun. Shorter term cooling can also be caused by volcanic eruptions,

regular climate ﬂuctuations such as El Niño, and air pollution. Between

the 1940s and 1960s the surface temperature of the Earth cooled slightly,

setting off a wave of speculation that the Earth was cooling and

perhaps even headed for a new ice age. The cooling during this period

is most often attributed to air pollution from industrial activity and the

large-scale burning of forests. Environmental legislation in the late

1960s and early 1970s greatly reduced this air pollution. In the 1960s and

1970s scientists intensively studied the cooling effects of air pollution on

climate because of concern about fallout from nuclear bombs, the

formation of contrails from air trafﬁc, urban smog, and government

plans to build a ﬂeet of supersonic transport airplanes.

Global warming refers to an increase in the average

surface temperature of the Earth on the order of decades or longer.

Numerous scientiﬁc assessments have concluded that global warming

is already happening due to greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide,

produced by industrial activity and changes in land use. The scientists

who studied cooling in the 1960s and 1970s were well aware of the

warming effect of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. It was not

until 1978, however, that scientists concluded that greenhouse gas

warming would outweigh air-pollution-induced cooling. Scientists posit

hypotheses, empirically test those hypotheses, and reject, revise, or

accept those hypotheses as empirical evidence dictates. In the late

1970s, scientists came to understand that greenhouse gas warming

would outweigh air pollution cooling, because of multiple independent

lines of inquiry that all led toward the same conclusion.

News coverage can sometimes be biased or sensational. While

journalists have covered both global warming and global

cooling, the highest quality journalistic coverage never took

advocacy positions and simply stated the facts of observed

weather or contemporary scientiﬁc thought. Most journalists

took great care in their statements about global cooling in the

1970s to indicate that they were covering an uncertain topic on

which scientists disagreed.

Many respected scientiﬁc bodies agree that human activities are

altering the atmosphere and warming the Earth, including: the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National

Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the

American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the

Advancement of Science, and many others. Furthermore,

researchers have studied scientiﬁc agreement on global warming

by reviewing scientiﬁc publications and by surveying earth

scientists. Both studies concluded that the vast majority of

scientists agree that the surface temperature of the Earth has

risen and human activity is a signiﬁcant contributing factor.

While solar variability does affect climate, the bulk of the

temperature changes observed in the 20

century are explained

by greenhouse gases, volcanic eruptions, and aerosols – with a

small contribution from solar variability. There is no reason to

expect the physics and chemistry that have driven the climate

system during the 20

century to suddenly change.

1. Global warming is just the

current fad in a journalistic

seesaw between global warming

and global cooling.

2. There is no agreement within

the scientiﬁc community on

global warming or its human

causes; consequently the entire

global warming debate is based

on speculation, not evidence.

3. Any rise in temperature is

entirely due to variations in solar

radiation, such as sunspot

cycles, or natural climate

variability. These trends also

indicate imminent global cooling.

Three common global cooling arguments made by global warming skeptics are presented below

with a response:

Arguments Responses

PARK CITY FOUNDATION

WWW.WEATHERWISE.ORG

■

WEATHERWISE

The difference between global cooling and

greenhouse gas warming can be thought of in

many ways, each containing important insights

into the climate system. Global cooling and the

descent into a new ice age are highly likely on the

scale of hundreds to thousands of years. Climate

warming due to human activities is highly likely

in the immediate future—indeed numerous sci-

entiﬁc assessments have concluded that it is al-

ready happening. Global cooling, as popularly

discussed, is largely the result of natural cycles,

such as the intensity of solar radiation and decadal

climate oscillations. Climate warming, as popu-

larly discussed, is largely the result of the accumu-

lation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due

to human industrial activity and land use. Most

importantly, the causes behind global cooling and

climate warming are not mutually exclusive.

Natural Cycles and Climate

An ice age is a period of time when ice sheets

cover part of the earth’s land surface. We cur-

rently live in an ice age as indicated by the large

masses of ice on Greenland and Antarctica.

Within an ice age, there are glacial (i.e., cold)

periods when land and sea ice cover increases,

and interglacial (i.e., warm) periods when land

and sea ice cover decreases. As colloquially used,

an “ice age” often refers to the “glacial” period

within an ice age of decreased atmospheric and

oceanic temperatures. Glacial periods operate on

40,000- and 100,000-year cycles, and interglacial

periods last tens of thousands of years. The earth

is currently in an interglacial period, and the

previous glacial maximum occurred more than

11,000 years ago.

A number of forces affect the onset of glacial

and interglacial periods, including minor changes

to the earth’s orbit around the sun and the tilt of

the earth’s axis (together known as Milankovitch

cycles), changes in sunspot activity, the atmo-

spheric composition of greenhouse gases, the

reﬂectivity of the earth’s surface, large meteor

impacts, volcanic eruptions, and other factors.

Each of these natural forces changes the amount

of incident solar radiation that is absorbed by the

earth’s atmosphere and oceans.

Scientists believe that these changes in inci-

dent solar radiation, and the associated feedback

mechanisms, are the main drivers of glaciation.

Conventional scientiﬁc wisdom holds that inter-

glacial periods, such as the period in which we

now live, last around 12,000 years, which would

mean that we are nearing the end of the pres-

ent interglacial period and may return to a glacial

period of cooler, dryer climate, advancing con-

tinental ice sheets, and increased sea ice extent

in the coming centuries, although this conven-

tional wisdom has been challenged.

Furthermore, natural climate oscillations can

also cause periods of cooler or warmer tempera-

tures on shorter time scales. While poorly un-

derstood, these climate oscillations have warm

and cool phases that cause signiﬁcant changes in

sea surface temperatures, air temperatures, wind

strength, precipitation, and other climate vari-

ables. Some of these oscillations occur on intra-

decadal timescales, such as the El Niño Southern

Oscillation, which recurs every two to seven

years, while others have inter-decadal timescales,

such as the Paciﬁc Decadal Oscillation and the

North Atlantic Oscillation, which occur every

20 or 30 years.

Any of these natural phenomena, or their in-

teractions, can lead to global cooling.

Climate change skeptics consistently claim that

the 1970s was a period of general scientiﬁc con-

sensus that the world was cooling. These claims of

scientiﬁc consensus on global cooling come from

people as varied as U.S. Senator James Inhofe,

best-selling author Michael Crichton, and clima-

tologist Pat Michaels. However, a recent survey

by Peterson et al. of the scientiﬁc literature of the

time indicates that no such consensus existed.

This study surveyed scientiﬁc articles on global

cooling and global warming between 1965 and

ISTOCKPHOTO/SEXTOACTO

ISTOCKPHOTO/SANDSUN

WEATHERWISE ■ JU LY / AUGUST 2010

hypotheses, and reject, revise, or accept those

hypotheses as empirical evidence dictates. Three

common global cooling arguments made by cli-

mate change skeptics are presented below along

with a response.

Argument 1: The Media Seesaw

Global warming is just the current fad in

a journalistic seesaw between global warming

and global cooling.

Journalists have covered both global warming

and global cooling, but the highest quality jour-

nalistic coverage never took advocacy positions

and simply stated the facts of observed weather

and/or current scientiﬁc thought. Many of the

articles cited by climate change skeptics as ad-

vocating one position or another were actually

quite careful in their statements to indicate that

they were covering an uncertain topic on which

scientists disagreed.

Ultimately, however, conﬂating news cover-

age—especially the headlines attached to sto-

1979, identifying only seven articles supporting

the theory of global cooling compared to 44 arti-

cles supporting global warming. Furthermore, the

cooling articles garnered a proportionate number

of journal citations. In other words, the evidence

indicates that no scientiﬁc consensus on cooling

existed during this time; global cooling simply re-

ceived prominent media attention.

Global Cooling Enters the Global

Warming Debate

Many people have used the scientiﬁc theo-

ries and media reports of global cooling from the

1970s as an argument against the current scien-

tiﬁc consensus on global warming. Furthermore,

because global average temperature spiked in

1998, global cooling arguments are being made

anew about the decade 1998-2008. Most global

cooling arguments present the complex process

of scientiﬁc discovery as a swing from advocat-

ing global cooling to advocating global warming,

typically due to ignorance or self-interest. But

scientists posit hypotheses, empirically test those

1940

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

MIT study “Man's Impact on

the Global Environment:

Report of the Study of

Critical Environmental

Problems” published,

publicly positioning climate

as an environmental issue

1942

According to

the WMO,

global average

temperatures

begin to cool

Scientists begin

studying the

cooling effects

of air pollution

1961

According to

WMO, global

average

temperature

begins to warm

1966

Drought in the

African Sahel

leads to

widespread

humanitarian

catastrophe

1968

1974

1970

1971

MIT study “Inadvertent

Climate Modiﬁcation:

Report of the Study of

Man's Impact on Climate”

published

U.S. Congress ceases

funding for supersonic

aircraft largely due to

environmental concerns

1972

Brown University

conference concludes

that another ice age

may be immanent;

organizers warn

President Nixon of a

possible Soviet strategic

advantage

Failure of Soviet winter

wheat harvest due to

drought and a severe

freeze; Soviets

purchase ¼ of U.S.

grain, leading to price

increases and depleting

world grain reserves

late

1972

early

1973

Peruvian anchovy harvest

collapses due to overﬁshing

exacerbated by El Nino;

soybean prices quadruple

Science Digest publishes an

article titled “Brace Yourself for

Another Ice Age”

1973

Spring ﬂoods, summer drought,

and early fall frost in American

Midwest exacerbate food prices

Monsoon failure in India and parts

of SE Asia lead to widespread

humanitarian catastrophe

CIA writes two reports citing

climatic effects on agriculture as

an international security issue

Time Magazine publishes an

article titled “Another Ice Age?”

1974

Newsweek publishes an article

titled “The Cooling World”

1975

winter

1976-1977

winter

1977-1978

Two consecutive record-

breaking cold winters in the U.S.

drive Congress to pass climate

legislation for the ﬁrst time

Scientists conclude that

-induced warming will override

aerosol cooling

1978

Discovery of the

ozone hole

1985

Record hot summer,

record drought,

record ﬂooding,

record hurricane

Gilbert labeled

“storm of the

century”

James Hansen

claims in testimony

to Congress that

global warming is

“99% certain” and it

“has been detected

and is changing our

climate now”

Newsweek and

Time publish cover

stories on global

warming

IPCC established

1988

1990

First IPCC report concludes

“[E]missions resulting from

human activities are

substantially increasing the

atmospheric concentra-

tions of…greenhouse

gases...”

U.S. Congress passes the

U.S. Global Change

Research Act “aimed at

understanding and

responding to global

change, including the

cumulative effects of

human activities and

natural processes on the

environment…”

Rio de Janeiro Earth

Summit; United States

Senate ratiﬁes and

President George H. W.

Bush signs the United

Nations Framework

Convention on Climate

Change

1992

Second IPCC report

concludes: “[T]he

observed trend in global

mean temperature over the

past 100 years is unlikely to

be entirely natural in

origin…these results point

towards a human inﬂuence

on global climate.”

1995

Third IPCC report

concludes: “There is

new and stronger

evidence that most of

the warming observed

over the last 50 years

is attributable to

human activities.”

The NAS responds to

President George W.

Bush’s request to

review the science

behind climate

change; the NAS

report reinforces the

IPCC third assessment

report

2001

Pentagon publishes a

report concluding that

abrupt climate change

should be a U.S.

National Security

concern

2003

Fourth IPCC report

concludes: “Most of the

observed increase in

global average

temperatures since the

mid-20

century is very

likely due to the

observed increase in

anthropogenic

greenhouse gas

concentrations.”

2007

WMO – World Meteorological Organization

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

NAS – National Academy of Sciences

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Global Average Temperature (ºF)

10 warmest years on record:

1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008

58.5º

58.0º

57.5º

57.0º

56.5º

Annual Average Atmospheric

Concentration (ppm)

400

380

360

340

320

Global Average Temperature.

Reference: World Meteorological Organization, 2009 WMO-No. 1039 ISBN 978-92-63-11039-8

Annual Average CO

Concentrations at Mauna Loa.

Reference: Dr. Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)

PARK CITY FOUNDATION

WWW.WEATHERWISE.ORG

■

WEATHERWISE

ries—with the evolving scientiﬁc understanding

of climate misses the point entirely. Even if news

coverage is biased or sensational, that does not

mean that scientists are biased or sensational. For

an accurate understanding of the state of climate

science, one needs to look beyond the news me-

dia at the science itself.

Argument 2: Scientiﬁc Disagreement

There is no agreement within the scientiﬁc

community on global warming or its human

causes; consequently the entire climate change

debate is based on speculation, not evidence.

In fact, many respected scientiﬁc bodies have

said just the opposite—that human activities are

altering the atmosphere, and this is leading to

warming temperatures. These scientiﬁc bodies

include the IPCC (2007a), the National Academy

of Sciences, the American Meteorological

Society, the American Geophysical Union, and

the American Association for the Advancement

of Science, along with many other national and

international scientiﬁc bodies.

One researcher analyzed 928 abstracts from

peer-reviewed scientiﬁc publications between

1993 and 2003 with the keywords “global cli-

mate change.” Of the 928 articles analyzed, 75

percent explicitly or implicitly accepted global

warming, 25 percent dealt with methods or pa-

leoclimate (e.g., studies of the last ice age), and

none of the papers disagreed that global warm-

ing is occurring. This demonstrates the strong,

evidence-based scientiﬁc consensus that climate

change is real.

Another pair of researchers tackled the ques-

tion of scientiﬁc consensus using a different

method. These researchers surveyed 3,146 earth

scientists, including some with “well-documented

dissenting opinions on global warming theory.”

According to the results of this survey, 90 percent

of respondents believed that temperatures had

risen, and some 82 percent believed human activ-

ity was a signiﬁcant contributing factor. These re-

searchers concluded, “It seems that the debate on

the authenticity of global warming and the role

played by human activity is largely nonexistent

among those who understand the nuances and

scientiﬁc basis of long-term climate processes.”

Finally, it is worth emphasizing that the sci-

entiﬁc consensus on global warming is based on

thousands of rigorous, evidence-based, peer-re-

viewed studies over several decades. As evidence

has accumulated through scientiﬁc study that

human activities are affecting the climate, the

IPCC has increased its reported conﬁdence in its

conclusions.

Argument 3: Warming Is

Due to Nature

Any rise in temperature is en-

tirely due to variations in solar

output or natural climate vari-

ability such as the North Atlantic

Oscillation. These trends also indi-

cate imminent global cooling.

While solar variability does affect

climate, greenhouse gases, volca-

nic eruptions, and aerosols explain

the bulk of 20th century observed

temperature changes—with a small

contribution from solar variability.

There is no reason to expect the

physics and chemistry that have

driven the climate system during

the 20th century to suddenly and

inexplicably change.

However, natural climate cool-

ing and human-induced climate

warming are not mutually exclu-

sive. Solar output has a substantial effect on cli-

mate, as do planetary climate oscillations such

as the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the

North Atlantic Oscillation. These natural cycles

add layers of complexity to the climate effects of

greenhouse gases. Climate change can mean less

cooling during periods of decreased solar output

or during a cool phase of the North Atlantic

Oscillation. Alternatively, climate change can

mean greater warming during periods of in-

creased solar output or during a warm phase of

the North Atlantic Oscillation.

Natural climate variability has a major effect

on current climate and may even cause the cli-

mate to cool while greenhouse gas concentra-

tions continue to increase. However, observed

cooling or an unusually cold winter does not

mean that greenhouse gas warming poses no

threat. The essential point here is that drawing

simple conclusions from a system as complex

as the climate is difﬁcult. Any statement about

climate change entrains signiﬁcant uncertainty,

and such uncertainty needs to be communicated

effectively for scientists, decision-makers, and

the public to make informed judgments about

the relative conﬁdence we have in projections of

future climate. While a broad base of evidence

indicates that the globe has warmed over the last

several decades and a broad scientiﬁc consensus

indicates a high likelihood of future warming,

signiﬁcant uncertainty accompanies projections

of the magnitude of future climate change, which

involves complex phenomena that prevent pre-

cise forecasting.

Glacier Perito Moreno Natonal Park in

Argentina, Patagonia.

ISTOCKPHOTO/GRAFISSIMO

WEATHERWISE ■ JU LY / AUGUST 2010

EXCITING WEATHER BOOKS!

WEATHER MAPS – How to Read and Interpret all the Basic Weather Charts – FOURTH

EDITION by Peter R. Chaston - $39. The standard reference and learning tool on how to read and

use weather maps, radar data, satellite imagery, etc. in weather forecasting. Topics range from

elementary to advanced. TEN THOUSAND COPIES SOLD! Used by meteorologists, weather

buffs, TV meteorologists, students, colleges and universities. ISBN: 0-9645172-8-0

TERROR FROM THE SKIES! by Peter R. Chaston - $20. Speculatively discusses the worst-case

climatic-change scenario if the Earth loses its ozone layer. Also has chapters on unusual weather

such as ball lightning chasing people, purple snow, etc. Interesting reading. ISBN: 0-9645172-1-3

HURRICANES! by Peter R. Chaston - $29. Covers in detail every important aspect of hurricanes.

Enhanced by over 100 graphics. A best-seller. ISBN: 0-9645172-2-1

WEATHER BASICS by Joseph J. Balsama & Peter R. Chaston - $34. Nearly 400 pages describing

all basic weather topics. Used in both colleges and high schools. ISBN: 0-9645172-5-6

JOKES AND PUNS FOR GROAN-UPS by James T. Moore & Peter R. Chaston - $15. Not a

weather book but comedy of two meteorologists inﬂ icted on their students over the past three

decades! ISBN: 0-9645172-3-X

THUNDERSTORMS, TORNADOES AND HAIL! by Peter R. Chaston - $29. Vividly explains

lightning, thunderstorm life-cycle, types of thunderstorms, hail, microbursts, tornadoes, plus a

technical section for those wanting a comprehensive detail of convection. ISBN: 0-9645172-6-4

QUANTITY BOOK TITLE COST

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Postage and handling@ $3 per book; if ordering 2 or more books, total shipping is $5 = $___________

Missouri residents add $5.1% sales tax = ____________

TOTAL = ____________

NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS: _____________________________________________________________________________

CITY: ___________________________________________________ STATE: _______ ZIP: _____________

Make check or money order payable to CHASTON SCIENTIFIC, Inc. and mail to:

Chaston Scientiﬁ c, Inc.; P.O. Box 758; Kearney, MO 64060

Thank you for your order. Please allow 2 to 4 weeks for delivery.

phone: 816-628-4770 • fax: 816-628-9975 • email: CHASTON111@AOL.COM

A Call to Action

The story of global cooling provides insight

into the world of scientiﬁc research on a high-

proﬁle topic of global importance. While pundits,

advocates, and the media often present a dichot-

omy between either global cooling on the one

hand or global warming on the other, the physi-

cal reality is much more complex. Nevertheless,

climate change skeptics continue to point to the

1970s global cooling theory, the spike of global

average temperature in 1998, and even to indi-

vidual cold weather events, as alleged proof that

climate change is a hoax. The main claims of

climate change skeptics regarding global cool-

ing, however, are irrelevant, oversimpliﬁed, or

patently false.

The concept of global climate change is rid-

dled with complications and uncertainties—

each of which merit continued scientiﬁc debate.

Nevertheless, . the impacts of a changing climate

are real and have signiﬁcant effects on people,

their property, and their environment. These

range from severe drought to heat waves to melt-

ing permafrost. A Florida family who loses their

house because of skyrocketing insurance rates,

Alaskan villagers who must abandon their com-

munity as it erodes into the sea, and wetland spe-

cies that lose their habitat to rising sea levels will

ﬁnd little comfort in an abstract debate about

global cooling. There are many generations to

come that are very likely to experience greater

climate impacts than our predecessors or we have

experienced. The time has come to stop jockey-

ing for political points, to recognize the reality

faced by many citizens, and to tackle the difﬁ-

cult task of protecting people, their property, and

their environment from adverse climate impacts.

JASON VOGEL is a senior associate specializing in policy

analysis at Stratus Consulting Inc. Dr. Vogel has investigated

climate change, chemical regulation, high-level radioactive

waste disposition, and natural resource management.

BRIAN LAZAR is a senior scientist at Stratus Consulting

Inc. specializing in the characterization and mechanics of

integrated hydrologic systems, using analytical techniques

from engineering, physics, and hydrology. The authors would

like to thank the Park City Foundation for its support in

writing this article. Park City Foundation illustrations taken

from the “Save Our Snow Climate Change and Economic

Impact” study at Park City Mountain Resort. Please visit

www.powdr.com

and

http://www.saveoursnow.net/site/

index.html

to see the full report.

PEET

BROS.

COMPANY, INC.

ULTIMETER

Weather Instruments

The best in affordable weather technology

for the serious weather watcher.

For our new catalog, please call 1-800-872-7338

www.peetbros.com

Peet 4.625x4.875 703 7/21/03 12:41 PM Page 1