Wallace Broecker has died at the age of 87, on February 18th, 2019, in New York. He leaves behind a large body of pioneering scientific research into the climate and the oceans. Perhaps his most significant contribution was to introduce the idea of the global ocean thermohaline conveyor belt and the concept of abrupt climate change caused by its sudden weakening via the input of fresh water into the ocean – so called “fresh water hosing”.
His Obits are all over the popular press, rightly so, but most of them incorrectly identify him as ‘correctly’ predicting the post 1975 rise in global temperature due to the build up of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere. Columbia University labels him a ‘Prophet of Climate Change’, saying:
In August 1975, Broecker synthesized his and others’ related research in the journal Science in a piece called “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” It was later said to be the first time the phrase was used in a scientific paper. In it, he argued that humans were changing the climate by emitting CO2; it just wasn’t evident yet, because the world was experiencing what he believed was a natural 40-year cooling cycle that was masking the effects. He predicted that the cycle would soon reverse, and then the manmade warming on top of that would become dramatically visible. It later turned out that he had misinterpreted some of the ice-core data, but had the overall picture right. Right on cue in 1976, temperatures started ascending, and have continued since then pretty much along the trajectory Broecker laid out.
The Guardian says:
Broecker brought “global warming” into common use with a 1975 article that correctly predicted rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would lead to pronounced warming.
He was also an advocate for political action to deal with the problem. In 1984, he told a House of Representatives subcommittee that urgent action was required to halt the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere because the climate system could “jump abruptly from one state to another” with devastating effects. His theories have subsequently become proven by events and are almost universally accepted by climate scientists.
The plain truth which warmists are not telling you in their unseemly haste to re-paint Broecker as The Father of Global Warming after his death is that, in 2017, he wrote an enigmatic essay, basically pointing out that his prediction was correct, but for the wrong reasons, whilst firmly pointing out his dislike for the epithet ‘Father of Global Warming’. In this respect, the current crop of obituaries in the warmist media is misguided, even disrespectful and the new epithet ‘Prophet of Climate Change’, coined by a Columbia University blogger, might be deemed to be darn right insulting. But that’s warmists for you; ever open to opportunities to push their pet theory, regardless of ethics.
I wrote an article about Wally Broeker’s Dumb Luck (his terminology) here. It’s even more relevant now he has passed away.
“‘Grandfather of Climate Science’ and populariser of ‘global warming’ Wallace Smith Broecker dies aged 87” proclaims Sky News.
In 2017, Wally said: “It is my hope that the title “Father of Global Warming” does not appear on my tombstone. Were it to, I would be faced with a restless afterlife.”
I’m thinking that Wally may be starting to get slightly restless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Inevitably, perhaps, the BBC story is:
“Climate change: Death of the ‘grandfather of climate science'”
But at the very end, they do at least say:
“Prof Broecker was known for his friendly, humble demeanour. He suffered from dyslexia, and never learned how to type or use a personal computer. He was somewhat embarrassed at the fuss over coining the term “global warming”, which he put down to “dumb luck”.
In an obituary on the Columbia University website, Prof Broecker is quoted as warning that he would turn over in his grave if someone put the phrase on his tombstone.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
But why remember the originator of a now defunct phrase? Global warming is so so old hat (and no longer true). We have gone through so many iterations. Is it “climate weirding” or “climate cancer” we’re up to now. But put it on his gravestone anyway.
The BBC can’t even get that right Mark. His dumb luck was predicting a rise in global temperature correctly, but for the wrong reasons. He was also very unhappy with being called the father of global warming and with being identified as the originator of the term global warming. As Alan points out, it’s called climate change now, or the climate crisis, global weirding, climate breakdown, or whatever currently appeals most to alarmists. But now suddenly, after his death, global warming – the term he most wished not to be associated with – is all the rage again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The Guardian says:
Broecker brought “global warming” into common use with a 1975 article that correctly predicted rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would lead to pronounced warming.”
I don’t think the phrase “global warming” was in common use in the 1970s. Back in those days global cooling was the much more prevalent idea, though the term “global cooling” wasn’t actually used, the anticipated cooling event was referred to as a coming “Ice Age”.
In the 1980s I don’t think the term “global warming” was in common use either, it was more likely to be described as the “greenhouse effect” as I remember it. An example of the use of the term “greenhouse effect”, which I think may be the first time this concept appeared in British politics, was in the Conservative party’s 1987 General Election manifesto (in the section on Energy):
Britain is the only major Western industrial country that is a net exporter of energy. This owes much to North Sea oil so successfully developed by free enterprise. But it is an advantage that will not last indefinitely.
Coal will continue to meet much of the steadily rising demand for electricity. Renewable sources of energy can make some contribution to the nation’s energy needs, which is why government-sponsored research has been increased. Nevertheless, to reject, as our opponents do, the contribution of nuclear energy to supplying reliable, low-cost electricity, and to depend on coal alone, would be short-sighted and irresponsible.
The world’s resources of fossil fuels will come under increasing strain during the 21st century; so may the global environment if the build-up of carbon dioxide the so-called “greenhouse effect” significantly raises temperatures and changes climates.
After the most careful and painstaking independent assessment of the safety case for a new pressurised water reactor at Sizewell, therefore, the Government has decided to proceed with the next phase of our nuclear programme. It is vital that we continue to give the highest priority to safety. Our nuclear industry has a record of safety and technical excellence second to none.
We intend to go on playing a leading role in the task of developing abundant, low-cost supplies of nuclear electricity, and managing the associated waste products.”
From the above extract, it is clear that the proposed main method for dealing with the greenhouse effect in the Thatcher era was the building of a fleet of several nuclear power stations of the Sizewell B design. Thatcher was deposed as party leader in 1990, and succeeded by John Major, who had a much less enthusiastic attitude towards nuclear power. Possibly under the influence of the Green advisers that came in during the Major era, and also his dodgy environment minister John Gummer, the fleet of nuclear power stations was never built apart from Sizewell B.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for that history Dave. Nuclear energy was, and still is, the only rational, economically, environmentally and socially feasible way to achieve the proposed huge reductions in CO2 which climate alarmists say are absolutely vital. Yet they have failed to embrace the technology, indeed have rejected nuclear energy on the grounds that it is ‘unsafe’. They are technically insane.
At WUWT the Mann Hockeystick University of Arizona emails are available
First couple of pages of 00249611.pdf Edward Cook in email to Mann mentions Wally Broecker in terms that are not that complimentary.
Further down the email we find out that Broecker believed the MWP was warmer than today. On Page 5 in earlier email of Tom Crowley find out it was Broecker’s article “Was the Medieval Warm
Period Global? in Science Perspectives that got the team – especially Mike Mann – a bit annoyed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? Wallace S. Broecker Science 23 Feb 2001: Vol. 291, Issue 5508, pp. 1497-1499 DOI: 10.1126/science.291.5508.1497
A couple of extracts from this article gives an indication whilst Broecker was non too popular with the hockey stick team.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Manic, thanks so much for digging up those fascinating tidbits. It illustrates that Broecker was not as popular with the global warming ‘community’ as might be supposed, simply because he was an independent thinker who put scientific evidence before adherence to consensus. Also confirms what a little shit Mann is. Broecker’s gone up in my opinion even more after reading that.
MANICBEANCOUNTER (5 Mar 11.41am)
I’ve been browsing the same batch of emails.
Click to access 00249611.pdf
Ed Cook’s mail to Mann seems to be a reply to something in which Mann objects to an unpublished paper by Cook and Esper being used in Wally Broecker’s seminars. Mann complains:
“We are being discredited, and this is dangerous.”
As always, Mann’s attitude to scientific research is: “Does it support our position? And if not, what can we do to stifle/discredit it?”
Anthony Watts valiantly asked his readers to analyse the mails in a group effort. As always, 90% of the 240+ comments in the past two days prefer to sound off, attack Steve Mosher, talk among themselves etc. I’m wondering if we here could do better?
The email thread is very long, extending over a number of pages.
The first email is from Edward Cook starting “Dear Tom”. The address list has been lost. The proposed Esper & Cook paper is in response to Broecker’s paper with Esper doing the data analysis. This shows a strong, even canonical, MWP – LIA – C20th warming pattern. MWP has not as greater magnitude as C20th warming, but much greater than than previous hockey sticks. But it consistent with previous work by Jones and Briffa.
Cook then goes on to talk about the “Special Wally Seminar ” he arranged to convince Broecker of the error of his ways in claiming that trr-rings could not preserve long term temperature information. Wally was converted. But Jan Esper also presented on his findings at the same event, which strongly reinforced Wally’s opinion of the hockey stick.
Edward Cook strongly believed in reconciling the hockey stick with the non-hockey stick reconstructions and hoped everyone could join in that task.
This mesage is significant occurring a couple of years before Steve McIntyre came on the scene. It was only then that the multiple reasons for the hockey stick divergence from other studies was understood.