Posted: Aug 15, 2011 6:39 am
Globe wrote:
As for papers. There's "Heys et al" 1976.
I read the first two pages of that paper: http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hays1976.pdf
Just seems to be discussing the previous "ice-ages" and comparing it to the Earth's orbit. No alarm bells yet. So i skipped to the conclusion, maybe i missed the ice age predictions in between but here is what i found anyway:
summary wrote:6) It is concluded that changes in the
earth's orbital geometry are the funda-
mental cause of the succession of Quater-
nary ice ages.
7) A model of future climate based on
the observed orbital-climate relation-
ships, but ignoring anthropogenic ef-
fects, predicts that the long-term trend
over the next several thousand years is
toward extensive Northern Hemisphere
glaciation
It seems they predict some kind of glaciation period in the Northern Hemisphere within the next few thousand years. I don't think the authors were warning of any imminent ice age. Not the sort Time Magazine seemed to be implying anyway. Plus their prediction is ignoring anthropocentric effects.
As for the 2nd article you mentioned. I couldn't find a raw copy. Just blogs discussing how it didn't warn of any ice-age either.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html
This little-read report appears to serve as a useful summary of the state of opinion at the time (aside: I was prompted to read this by someone who thought the report supported the ice-age-was-predicted threoy [1]: as all too often happens, the report when actually read does no such thing...), which opinion was (my summary) "we can't predict climate yet, we need more research".
Whatever scare campaigns were around at the time seem to have come from the media. Not from the predictions of scientists.