Global warming aka climate change…not cooling. UPDATED



Longterm trends are the important thing; a couple of very hot years, ironically, have been made the basis for the idea that the earth is cooling. The graph from shows how ridiculous that is.
UPDATE: See comments for discussion.



Filed under Exxon: the Pope's in their pocket, global warming/environment, Outdoors

24 responses to “Global warming aka climate change…not cooling. UPDATED

    • Yes, the plot you reference is similar to a small portion of the graph I posted, and is a great example of how cherry picking data is misleading. When you choose the starting point according to what you want to believe, you can usually find something to support your position. As my posted chart shows, the starting point of your curve was an extremely hot year, well above the predicted temperature, and over the subsequent years temperatures are approaching the line of prediction. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases will continue to support higher temperatures, and increasing carbon dioxide levels are acidifying our oceans. For the sake of our children and their children, we need to reverse these trends by weaning ourselves rapidly from fossil fuels.
      I don’t know why you have chosen to line up against the overwhelming climatologic scientific opinion, but I suspect you have been influenced by the Exxon/Chevron/coal industry disinformation programs.

  1. Let us deal with facts – not activism, alarmism, or hyperbole.

    • I looked at that rambling letter to a little New Mexico newspaper. It’s a sorry collection of snippets from here and there, beginning with this bizarre statement:
      “Over geologic time. there has been 15 to 25 times more CO2 than current concentrations; the claim that this time we will reach a tipping point is alarmist, ludicrous, and totally without foundation. ”
      This concentration of CO2 would not be compatible with life as we know it. Period.
      It is difficult to imagine that you are a serious person, to post something like this as your primary source.

  2. Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55 million years ago

    “It was dinosaurs driving SUVs!!!” — Saint Al of the Gore

    • This study referenced in the news article seemingly doesn’t dispute that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or that it contributed to warming in a 10,000 year period that resulted in mass extinctions. You haven’t read the study, nor have I, nor would either of us be able to criticize it if we did read it. Climate scientists have not had a chance to discuss it. I would suggest you follow and see what they think of it.
      UPDATE: Some thoughts from someone with a better background, who has actually read the study.

      Undoubtedly, the climatic boundary conditions before the PETM were different from today’s – including different continental configuration, absence of continental ice and a different base climate, which limits the PETM’s suitability as the perfect future analogue.” (emphasis mine)

      Second, the study investigates a single climate model, rather than the many different climate models that are available. Even so, though, the study does raise a couple of important questions that really should be answered.

      The first question is whether, as the authors claim, this study represents “a fundamental gap in our understanding” of climate that “needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change.” It certainly suggests that we don’t understand enough, but is the problem our understanding of the PETM, our understanding of recent climate change, or both? At this point, there’s not enough information to know the answer to that question. After all, some scientists have suggested that climate models are insufficient to predict the long-term changes to the Earth’s climate resulting from anthropogenic CO2, and that over the next thousand years, CO2 will actually drive far more heating than it does over the next century.

      The second question is whether this study supports the contention that climate models are underestimating the effects of anthropogenic climate disruption. The authors found that their climate model only accounted for approximately 3.5 degrees of the five to nine degrees of warming that actually occurred during the PETM. If this is accurate, then this study could mean that the models to date have underestimated the effect of CO2 emissions by 43% to 157%, and that climate disruption during the next century or two could be much, much worse than it is already expected to be.

    • Of the actual relevant scientists in this film, at least two later protested that their comments had been misused and they don’t agree with the film’s message. The information on troposphere warming was potentially important had it been correct, but turned out to be wrong….the Alabama group acknowledged that they had made mistakes. I would say overall the film is quite misleading and worthless at this point. Were it not for fossil fuel industry support and media wanting to sell “controversy,” real or drummed up, this kind of stuff would never be made or taken seriously.

  3. Professor Ian Plimer, Australian geologist:

    ‘I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.’

    • The author of the quote is either a liar or completely uninformed about the scope of the research on global warming aka climate change. Posting the statement reflects badly on you.

  4. 31,478 American scientists have signed this petition,
    including 9,029 with PhDs

    Also see:

    • This infamous and dishonest “petition” has been circulating around for many years. Linking to it is an admission of intellectual and ethical bankruptcy.
      Many who signed it were deceived, as it was printed so as to pass as a communication from the National Academy of Sciences. Signees included imaginary characters, non-existent persons, and other fradulent entries. A recent attempt to authenticate signatures suggested that only a tiny fraction might be actual climate scientists. Random Googling of the names is quite amusing.

  5. Professor Bob Carter uses the scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels. He examnines the hypothesis and it fails the test.

    • There is no scientific method here. Bob Carter is not a climate scientist, or a naturalist, he is an ocean drilling specialist, who is funded by big oil, to give these misleading presentations. He doesn’t actually believe in science…he says that the role of peer review in scientific literature is overstressed. The Sydney Morning Herald, 2007:”Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community.” He tries to make light of the current global warming by citing past disturbances, completely omitting the fact that developed human civilization on a mass scale were not present during past episodes and the impact that rapid climate will have in modern times. Of course, his comments about the polar bears are just stupid. He is essentially saying that because a species exists today, it can’t become extinct because it never has before.

  6. Global Temperatures Chart 2500 BC to 2040 AD

    This historical global temperature chart clearly shows that nothing is happening now that has not happened in the last three thousand years. We are not to blame for the global warming that has been going on for the last 100 plus years. Actually it has been getting cooler the last ten years, so what is all the hype about this global warming? I guess the cooling trend is the reason that as of late, they have changed the name to climate change.

    • seesdifferent

      This is a ridiculous piece of trash. This isn’t science, it isn’t even a respectable cartoon, let alone a respectable graph. Where is the vertical axis? The two guys who took “credit” for it are not even trained meterologists, let alone climatologists. To read more about them and their “cartoon”, go here.

  7. There is now irrefutable scientific evidence that far from global warming the earth has now entered a period of global cooling which will last at least for the next two decades.

    Evidence for this comes from the NASA Microwave Sounding Unit and the Hadley Climate Research Unit while evidence that CO2 levels are continuing to increase comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.

    • Well, the good old Belfast Telegraph, where I go to get my science. Don Easterbrook is not a climatologist, he’s another retired geologist who is on the Big Oil payroll. The meeting in New York was NOT attended by 700 climatologists, The “Senate” report is not a Senate report but a “white paper” ginned up by the minority leader of a committee and released by him during Christmas vacation. The cited “scientists” are by and large not climatologists, many are not even real scientists. Big Oil can afford to sponsor all sorts of conferences and can call anyone a “scientist”, I suppose.

  8. Dr Willem de Lange:

    So, given my understanding of oceanography, what do I believe about climate change? Firstly climate change is real, and has occurred on Earth for at least 4 billion years – as long as an atmosphere and oceans have existed. Climate change occurs in cycles at various time scales, with the shorter time scales known as weather (by convention the distinction is 35 years). Trying to stop or control climate change is akin to stopping ocean tides.

    • Well, since this gentleman is not a climate scientist, and gives no data to substantiate his position, his statement has no weight. Notably, he accepts global warming and sea level rise as fact. His idea that increasing atmospheric CO2 is coming from the ocean is, too put it politely, bizarre, and puts him in the kook category. Only a kook could dream up some mechanism that ignores the 350 billion metric tons of worldwide CO2 emissions.

  9. Today It’s Global Warming; In the ‘70s It was the Coming Ice Age


    • You can’t show me any evidence that the scientific community was predicting global cooling, because there isn’t any. The stuff you are referring to were a lot of press reports, particularly a Newsweek article, misrepresenting the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Even at that time, scientists were expressing concern about increasing levels of greenhouse gases, and many felt that whatever cooling might have occurred over the short run was due simply to aerosol dispersions, and whether we were headed for a period of cooling or warming was going to depend on which predominated. If you look at the greenhouse gas emission curve, it is clear that these gases have increased enormously. The National Academy of Sciences report of 1975 does not predict cooling.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s