An Exquisite Debunking of Global Cooling Claims

By Chris Mooney | October 27, 2009 9:00 am

…has just arrived from Seth Borenstein of the AP. To wit:

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

“If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller “Freakonomics.” Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.

I fear that the new spate of global cooling claims are having a serious impact, perhaps even an impact detectable in the numbers above–so Borenstein’s is a much needed debunking. It deserves as wide a circulation as possible.


Comments (39)

  1. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend “will be never talked about again.”

    Until 2011.

  2. Excellent article by the AP. Unfortunately, it should be clear to everybody that the main thrust of the objection to global warming is rooted in political and ideological, not scientific, considerations. It is the exact same game that the political right plays with evolution vs intelligent design. Regardless of the evidence, if your “theory” clashes with my preconceived notions or beliefs, then it is–at best–suspect, and even the most insignificant or most construed data I can come up with serves to reject your theory. It would be comical if the stakes on all of these issues weren’t so high. Pathetic.

  3. Erasmussimo

    This was a great idea! It’s obvious to any scientist that the temperature data do not indicate anything like cooling, yet the myth of cooling is now de rigueur among AGW deniers. I’m really glad that the AP carried out this little test. Of course, the AGW deniers will ignore it. They’ll be parroting the global cooling line when the Arctic Ocean is ice-free.

  4. Guy

    The won’t deny the warming trend, they’ll just try to spin it. They’ll claim that either it isn’t such a big deal or is in fact a good thing. When it comes to denier logic, it’s “ring-around the rosy” type of reasoning. They’ll say/do anything (where money is involved) except acknowledge the reality of global warming and it’s consequences.

  5. Mat C

    Although the study could potentially debunk the “global cooling phenomenon” one also needs to remember that the cooling trend has only been ongoing for 10 years or less (potentially too little time to discern a trend). In addition, the evidence suggests that the suns is cause of the warming experienced over the last 100 years. This is nothing to say climate change believers compare the current climate period to the….. little ice age.

  6. Sorbet

    The problem is more serious that this. Since warming is not *completely* uniform, maybe we WILL see, say four years, when there does seem to be cooling. Clearly this will not be enough to refute global warming but one can imagine that the deniers will seize upon this with glee and use it for massive propaganda. The real danger arises from them being able to affect public opinion and and policy enough in those four years to seriously undermine climate change efforts for several years to come.

  7. Erasmussimo

    Mat C, you write “the cooling trend has only been ongoing for 10 years”. Did you read the article that Chris linked to? There has been no cooling trend! What you call a cooling trend is not statistically significant. You’re misreading the data. Yes, if we get more data, we might eventually get a statistically significant cooling. But right now the data — ALL the data — strong suggests a sharp warming. Hence the proper interpretation of the data is that we are in the midst of a strong warming trend. Again — THERE IS NO COOLING TREND.

    ” In addition, the evidence suggests that the suns is cause of the warming experienced over the last 100 years. ”

    No, it does not. I don’t know what evidence you are referring to, but in fact we have been measuring solar output with great precision since 1979 (when we first got satellites that could measure it with high precision), and the thirty years of data we have from that suggests no changes in solar output other than the usual 11-year sunspot cycle — which is a cycle, not a secular trend.

  8. It does not say that there is a rise in the temperate data either. So this does nothing to support or debunk any ones theories. The system we are trying to understand is so complicated that no one understands. We do not even know how magnetism, electricity, cancer works. The environment has always been in flux. To amount of global taxation will change it….

  9. Erasmussimo

    John, the data clearly show a strong rise in temperature over the appropriate time scale (at least 30 years). If you look at ALL the data that is reliable — roughly the last century — you get a strong and steep upward trend.

    And to suggest that we don’t understand climatology is simply wrong. True, we are not omniscient: we do not understand every microscopic detail. But then, we don’t understand crime perfectly yet we still have laws against it. We don’t understand geopolitics perfectly yet we still go to war. We don’t need perfect understanding in order to justify taking action — we just need to understand the situation well enough to make reasonable judgements about it. And we certainly understand climatology well enough now to draw the reasonable conclusion that AGW is a serious problem that poses a threat of such magnitude that some efforts to combat it are justified.

    ” We do not even know how magnetism, electricity, cancer works.”

    What do you mean ‘we’, Kemosabe? Ever heard of Maxwell’s equations? Did you know that magnetism is a relativistic effect?

  10. Mat C

    I was a believer in man-made global warming until a few years ago when I started seeing oddities that began to debunked the theory in my thinking. First- the number of sun spots at solar maximums has been increasing for every maximum event for the last 100 or so years. Weather and temperatures patterns have shown a high correlation with sunspots- ask Piers Corbin or the Farmer’s Almanac. In addition, when you see the Earth’s atmosphere warming, Mar’s atmosphere warming, and signals that Jupiter’s atmosphere is warming- the likelihood of these all the warming trends being driven by separate events decreases and the probability that sun is driving the warming trend increases.

  11. Erasmussimo

    Mat C, your comments on sunspots are without foundation. Yes, there is an 11-year solar cycle and yes, there is a tiny effect from this on earth’s temperatures — we can calculate it directly from basic physics. However, that calculation shows that the changes in earth’s temperature over the last 30 years are much greater than can be explained by observed changes in solar output.

    And I’d suggest that you rely on more scientifically reliable sources than the Farmer’s Almanac.

    The warming on Mars is explained by a period of dust storms and has nothing to do with solar radiance.

    There is no evidence whatsoever of warming in the Jovian atmosphere. Moreover, Jovian atmospheric dynamics are not drive by insolation — they’re driven by heat generated in the Jovian core. Did you know that Jupiter is an almost-star?

  12. katesisco

    I like all these opinions and ‘Call in, caller, tell us what you think’, only we have to be able to type.

    The further back in history you go the simpler things become, less gods, less bureaucracy, just bare, naked trade: commerce. China’s earliest dynasty the Sheng, was discovered to have a contemporary but totally different, more advanced civilization at Sanxingdui. Amazing.

    actually, the ‘warming’ (read Vital Vastness) seems to be from outside out sun’s magnetosphere. As in OUTSIDE, a neat fact demonstrated that a planetary event is felt here before it hits the sun, and causes, a reaction which we then get, kind of like lightening. It rises from the earth FIRST, then makes a cloud connection and forks back down, the part we see.

  13. MartyM

    “In addition, when you see the Earth’s atmosphere warming, Mar’s atmosphere warming, and signals that Jupiter’s atmosphere is warming- the likelihood of these all the warming trends being driven by separate events decreases and the probability that sun is driving the warming trend increases.”

    The claim Pluto is warming is used as evidence of sun activity. If the sun was warming the solar system enough for Jupiter or Pluto to warm, the earth would be cooked by now. Pluto is warmed due to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989. Other planets with an atmosphere of their own can create and trap green house gases (GHG) just like Earth. Jupiter’s warming is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun. Mars is warming because winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature. Venus has an extremely high level of GHG and a very hot atmosphere (~460 degrees C), but no warming trends have been detected.

  14. Frank.

    Kate, whuh? In large states commerce and beurocracy have most always been dependent upon one another. Gods have most always been a source of comfort, fear and control for man (gos back to the beurocracy necessary for large scale commerce).

    Solar flares at least exascerbate global warming, but that’s the problem: we are so close to the tipping point, that the nudge at the top of the stairs may end up pushing us down them.

  15. Mat C

    Man-made global warming is a hoax perpetuated by scientists and politicians that need to protest their image- pure and simple.

    There is enough scientific dissent- if you look for it, that bears this out. Or at least suggests the debate is far from over.

  16. Erasmussimo

    Mat C, the scientific dissent you cite is a mirage. Yes, there are some scientists who reject AGW. Almost all of the dissenters have no credentials in climatology. There are a number of geologists who reject AGW because they know that the earth has undergone big changes in climate in the past. What they don’t realize is that the climate changes of the past took place far more slowly than the changes we are recording know. There are a handful of scientists whom I consider to be qualified to render a reliable judgement who reject AGW. Contrast this with the thousands of qualified scientists who embrace AGW.

    If the Supreme Court made a decision on an 8 to 1 vote, would you call their decision a hoax? If the Senate passed a law on a 99 to 1 vote, would you call their decision a hoax? If the people of the United States elected a Republican President with 99% of the vote, would you call that landslide a hoax?

  17. Mat C

    I do not know if I would call it a hoax- it depends. All I am saying is there enough dissent and evidence to say that the debate is not over and that the general conclusions may not be right. I can list many times where the consensus thought was wrong because of group think. Besides, there is no denying that the comparisons of rising temperatures over the last 100 years is skewed, as this period coincides with the end of the little ice age.

  18. Erasmussimo

    Mat C, you write that “there enough dissent and evidence to say that the debate is not over and that the general conclusions may not be right. ”

    Let me rephrase my questions:

    If the Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 on a decision, would you say that there is enough dissent to consider the debate not over?

    If the Senate passed a law on a 99 to 1 vote, would you say that there is enough dissent to consider the debate not over?

    If a Republican were elected President with 99% of the vote, would you say that there was enough dissent to call into question the mandate that the President has?

  19. Katt

    I can’t believe how many spelling mistakes are present in the user comments.

  20. Katt

    Mat C doesn’t know what he is talking about.

  21. Paul Pierett

    I totally disagree. Paul Pierett

  22. Robby

    If over 31,000 scientists with degrees and including over 9,000 with PhD’s all in scientific fields, would you say that there was enough dissent to consider a debate that is spearheaded by a man who took one class related to climate science in college?

  23. Erasmussimo

    Robby, if there were that many scientists with appropriate credentials questioning AGW, then I would take that very seriously. The problem is, the actual number of scientists with the appropriate credentials who challenge AGW is much less than 100. There have been three such nosecounts of which I am aware. The first is from a group in Cave Junction, Oregon — the one you linked to — who simply announced on the Internet, “If you’re a scientist and you oppose AGW, sign our petition.” They got tens of thousands of signatures. But when you go through the list, you’ll find such eminent scientists as the front four of an NFL football team, a number of female pop music signers, some actresses, and a cartoon character. Later on, the petition organizers tightened up their standards — they took down the Internet announcement and sent snail mail letters to scientists in colleges and universities all over the country — but they didn’t remove the names from the original Internet petition. This is the source of your “31,000 scientists” number.

    Marc Morano, the most energetic opponent of AGW (and a man with no science training whatsoever) compiled his own list while working as an aide at the US Senate. This list had only 600 names, as I recall. A scientific organization went through the list name by name and established that only a handful of the names on the list were valid. Some of the scientists on the list were outraged to find that they were on the list — they most surely do not oppose AGW. Some of the scientists on the list were scientists all right: psychologists, geologists, chemists, biologists, etc. Such people have no credentials in climatology. Some of the scientists on the list are employees of oil companies. I repeat, when you include only those scientists with credentials in climatology, you end up with a handful of names.

    Is my 99% number accurate? There’s no way to know with certainty: the numbers are always changing and you can quibble over the definition of “credentials” ad infinitum. Nevertheless, I think the number is reasonable for the following reason: there are certainly thousands of credentialed scientists who embrace AGW, and there are only a few dozen who reject it.

  24. Blind tests make sense for sampling and testing, not for trend analysis. If you tell people to see if there’s a trend, and if there WAS one, they will see a trend.

    Now, if the trend has halted, they won’t care about that, because the assumption is that the previous trend will, or may continue.

    Nobody says “cooling” has come on. Only that the putative warming has halted. If if the “larger” trend is warming, the question arises, why did it stop for ten years? The models say it will continue smoothly.

    This “test” is just a bunch of media hokum.

    Cherry picking data is an equal opportunity sin. Everyone is guilty of it.

  25. Mat C

    Besides the question of the number of scientists for or against global warming, climate change, what is Al Gore calling it now- any rational, unbiased person who looks at the data from all angles would conclude that the evidence for man-made global warming is spotty, at best. Irregardless of the whatever scientific data both sides of the debate have, the one fact that the industrial revolution began at the end of the little ice age (when global temperatures were as much as 3 to 5 degrees cooling, on average) suggests the hockey stick graph that all global-warming cultist love to pull out as evidence is highly suspect.

  26. Erasmussimo

    Lichanos, you are incorrect in stating that “nobody says that cooling has come on”; there are a great many people saying exactly that. But let us consider your statement in the modified form “I am not saying that cooling has come on”. You make it clear that you instead believe that warming has halted. On what basis do you make this claim? You are considering a small stretch of data spanning a period shorter than the natural relaxation time for the earth’s temperature (at least 30 years); this is scientifically incorrect reasoning, akin to claiming a depression if economic output falls for one month.

    Mat C, you have failed to answer the questions I put to you, so I think it fair to conclude that you now concede the point that the great majority of scientists accept AGW, and that their conclusion is logically compelling. Let me now turn to your latest post (#26). You claim that “any rational, unbiased person who looks at the data from all angles would conclude that the evidence for man-made global warming is spotty, at best.” OK, I ask you, have you looked at the data from all angles? Have you examined the data regarding ocean thermoclines? How about the data on lapse rates at different latitudes? What is your assessment of the data from the satellites measuring solar output? And how do you feel about the problems concerning ice core data from Greenland versus that from Antarctica?

    Yes, if a person examined the data from all angles, then I’d give that person a great deal of credibility. But there is no such person: the data available is of such overwhelming magnitude that no individual could examine all of it. There are, however, some people who have examine some specific data sets in great detail; wouldn’t you be willing to give them credibility? They’re the scientists, the professionals who actually work in the fields, the ones who really know what they’re talking about. So I ask you, why do you reject their conclusions regarding AGW? Are you more knowledgeable than they are?

  27. Robby

    Erasmussimo, please go to that website i sent with my post. Again, it’s

    On the site they openly name every single specific person with every single specific degree, as well as the exact petition which they signed. Specifically, there are 3,803 who signed it who’s degrees were in the fields of atmosphere, environment, and Earth, which are not the only but definitely the most credited fields directly regarding climate science.

    They clearly signed it. If what you said is true, then you must take it seriously.

  28. Erasmussimo

    Robby, I first went to that site some three years ago, in order to see for myself what it had. I selected one letter of the alphabet — I can’t recall which one — and printed out the list of names beginning with that letter. Then I started going through the names, one by one, trying to figure out who they were.

    Remember, any qualified scientist is going to have some sort of web presence. Yet at least half the names on the list could not be found on the web. Of the ones I could identify, I found a housewife in Alaska, several oil company employees, a forester, and others like these. In going through several hundred names, I found only ONE person with any published scientific paper — and that was a fellow who had published one paper in the early 1970s on butterflies in the Amazon basin.

    Thus, I did not find a single appropriate scientist in the group I looked at. Others have gone through that list and found, as I mentioned earlier, the front four for a national football team, some female pop singers, and a cartoon character.

    This list is junk. It is full of false names and names of people who have no credentials. Even Marc Morano, who has no scruples about twisting the facts, could find only 600 people to claim as experts who reject AGW — and most of those turned out to be wrong, too.

    However, to humor you, I went to the website and grabbed one of the names at random: Thomas John Curphey. I searched for this person on Google; here’s what is listed for his work:

    “The focus of efforts in our laboratory is on synthetic and natural sulfur compounds which have chemoprotective properties against cancer. A class of compounds of particular interest at the moment are the dithiolethiones, of which one representative, Oltipraz, i …..”

    Doesn’t look much like climatology, does it? So I decided that perhaps I should humor you some more and pick another name at random. I picked “Matthew A. Braccio”. A Google search on his name returned 12 hits, most of them arising from his signature on the petition. However, he does show up in two places: as the inventor of a screw assembly for use in space. Here’s the beginning of the patent description:

    “A connector for an Orbital Replacement Unit (ORU) includes a screw in an active connector structure which mates with a floating nut in a passive connector structure. Two alignment pins in active structure mate with sockets in the passive structure. As the screw is turned, a push rod assembly in…”

    Doesn’t sound much like climatology, does it?

    I could continue this process for a long time, but by now you should perceive the point: the names on that list are not those of climatologists. I suggest that you do the same thing I did: go through those names and find somebody who really is a climatologist. It will take you a while, if you’re lucky enough to find such a person. Here’s a hint: look for Richard Lindzen. He’s a genuine climatologist, and he rejects AGW. Good luck finding anybody else.

  29. Robby

    That is a very interesting point of who the real people are, and i will definitely look in to it.

    I’ve read about multiple examples (whom I could enumerate if desired) of scientists who fear that if their data does not lead up to AGW, they will lose funding or get fired. It makes sense to do that too, from a political standpoint, but the censorship of data that could possibly be happening is horrible for science.

    For now, however, Al Gore nor Rajendra Pachauri are climatologists of even scientists, and they were the two who accepted the nobel peace prize, and James Hansen, one of the leading scientists, has no climate degree, only ones that would help fudge computer codes. And even though with Pachauri’s IPCC there are many many scientists who back up what he officially releases, Al Gore’s an Inconvenient Truth was absolute propoganda that even the IPCC and the British high court admitted had many huge errors. Showing a clip of Hurricane Katrina, then a nuclear bomb, then deforestation, is not a presentation of true science data. Showing the Ground Zero of the World Trade Center flooding is also not a way to show true science data. Talking about his life after losing the election to Bush in 2000 for a more emotional appeal is also not a way to show true scientific data.

    Those who believe in AGW use scare tactics much more than anything else. They call dissenters sponsored by the oil industry, even though Al Gore OWNS a carbon credit company which he gains revenue from, and he was the second highest receiver of environmental special-interest money during a presidential campaign.

    What are your thoughts on the cooling between the 40’s and late 70’s? Why didn’t temperature skyrocket during a time where every single nation that could was using all of their industrial power, and in much less efficient ways? They say that it was a stupid thing that all scientists just jumped on, but this time it’s real because we know SO much more. But i find that hard to believe, as most of the information we have learned between now and then regard climate models, not true fact. And from the models i’ve seen, like this one, display how insanely high our Carbon levels were, and our earth is still here.

    From the research i’ve done, it can be widely accepted that this summer and fall were at least a little cooler on a global scale (just by looking up records cold temperatures on google and finding meterologists from Australia, europe america and asia). If I was to say THAT MEANS WE’RE COOLING! That would be absolute nonsense, because in the sense of our past 100 years or so of warming, 5 months is minuscule.

    Try juxtaposing that with what AGW alarmists claim. 100 years of warming in 4-11 billion years of the earth proves for sure that we are causing a great rise in temperature. How can something like that not be at least a little debatable? It is an immense charge on human kind they are trying to throw down, that we are somehow throwing out of whack the most stable planet we know of that has dealt with everything else that’s hit it.

    I find this issue a very though provoking one on both sides, and again i will soon do research on real scientists in that list.

  30. Erasmussimo

    Robbie, you write:

    “I’ve read about multiple examples (whom I could enumerate if desired) of scientists who fear that if their data does not lead up to AGW, they will lose funding or get fired. It makes sense to do that too, from a political standpoint, but the censorship of data that could possibly be happening is horrible for science.”

    I would very much like to see those names. As it happens, science funding does not occur in the manner you suggest. This is a fundamental point about science that I mentioned elsewhere: the home run in science is to come up with something contrarian that you can back up with data. Conversely, the surest path to professional oblivion (after publishing something that’s incorrect) is to publish something that’s “me too”. You don’t get ahead in the world of science by replicating other people’s work. You get ahead by coming up with something that confutes the accepted beliefs. And one of the first questions that funding committees ask is, “Why is this research new and different?” So in fact you have it exactly backwards; scientists are paid to contradict received wisdom.

    I agree that there’s plenty of propaganda that should be rejected. Al Gore’s movie was propaganda, no question about it. There’s also plenty of propaganda coming from the other side. In general, my perception is that the pro-propaganda is guilty of alarmism and the anti-propaganda is guilty of outright lies.

    “What are your thoughts on the cooling between the 40’s and late 70’s? Why didn’t temperature skyrocket during a time where every single nation that could was using all of their industrial power, and in much less efficient ways?”

    The notion that there was cooling during that period is a matter of interpretation. The historical plot shows a reduction in temperatures of about 0.1ºC, which is right at the limit of the resolution of our data, so it could be nothing more than a statistical fluctuation. Contrast this with the rise in temperature over the last century of 0.8ºC — well about our resolution. That’s definitely very real. Moreover, the time scale of that change is 30 years — right at the lower limit of what we consider to be the minimum length of time for a change to qualify as climatically significant. Hence, the claim of cooling during that period is a bit of a stretch. There could have been cooling, but if so, it was tiny.

    There’s an even more fundamental error in your thinking: the notion that the response of a complex phenomenon to a stimulus must be microscopically commensurate. Think of it this way:

    If global warming is real, then why isn’t it warmer at 11:03:12 AM than at 11:03:11 AM?

    Obviously, that’s ridiculous to expect such microscopic adherence to the general trend. But then, why isn’t it warmer on October 31st than on October 30th? Same story: we’re slicing the pie too thinly. The same thing goes for, say, 2009 compared to 2008. On the other hand, we know for certain that it was warmer in 2001 than it was in 1901, and we know that that difference is meaningful. So, where do we draw the line between fluctuations and real trends? There is no hard and fast line, but there is a way to estimate it approximately. We do this by comparing how much heat the oceans can store with how much heat the sun pumps into the earth every day. I don’t recall the precise numbers (I can do the calculation for you if you wish), but the end result is that if, say, the sun increased its output by 1%, it would take roughly 30 years for the ocean temperatures to increase by 0.1%. Thus, I use 30 years as the minimum time for real temperature change to show up. Yes, if the sun increased its output by 100 times, the oceans would heat up a lot faster, but we’re not talking about effects that large. The kind of effects we’re talking about are so small that they would only show up over a period of at least 30 years. Anything happening over a shorter time is a fluctuation, not a trend.

    “They say that it was a stupid thing that all scientists just jumped on”

    “They” are quite wrong. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in the mid-1970s stating that there was not enough evidence to draw any conclusions about global changes in temperature, either up or down.

    Yes, CO2 levels were much higher at various points in the past. Yes, the earth got along just fine during those periods. The question is, could our civilization get along just fine during such periods? When sea levels were several hundred feet higher than they are today, lots of land that we now use as farmland, and lots of land upon which there are cities today, was under water. That land would get along just find under water. The cities wouldn’t be so fortunate.

    “Try juxtaposing that with what AGW alarmists claim. 100 years of warming in 4-11 billion years of the earth proves for sure that we are causing a great rise in temperature. How can something like that not be at least a little debatable? ”

    Because 100 years is much longer than it takes for the oceans to change temperature in response to a small change. The trend we have seen over the last 100 years is not a fluctuation. It’s real.

    “It is an immense charge on human kind they are trying to throw down, that we are somehow throwing out of whack the most stable planet we know of that has dealt with everything else that’s hit it.”

    Again, the earth will be just fine. We could annihilate humanity and the earth would be just fine. But does the argument that the earth will be just fine justify annihilating humanity? AGW will not annihilate humanity; it won’t even come close. At worst, it will cost us many trillions of dollars. But you know what the man said: A trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.

  31. Paul Pierett

    My research is posted at I had a little problem posting the other day off the BB.

    It is all about sunspots. We have entered a minimum and that may match 1700 and 1800 minimums.

    It will get colder than one can imagine. Climate changes will be dramatic. Each area will be different as one begins at the Arctic Circle and moves to the Equator

    All for now. No reason to retype my research here.

    Most Sincerely,

    Paul Pierett

  32. Erasmussimo

    Mr. Pierett, I downloaded your paper and started reading it, but I gave up on Page 6 when you argued that sunspots, not methane from cows, is the source of past global warming:

    “Considering the size of a cow, how many cows would it take to match a sunspot?”

    Another example: earlier, you repeated the falsehood that all the planets in the solar system are warming:

    “According to one report, all the planets in our solar system have warmed up”

    This falsehood is easily debunked with just a few minutes of searching the web.

    Your paper contains a great many errors of fact and logic. It is not up to the logical quality that I would expect from a high school science student.

  33. Arrow

    Yes, there is no cooling trend but the warming almost halted during the last decade even though it has seen the highest concentration of greenhouse gases. No climate model managed to predict this slowing down which proves factors that led to it are not properly understood or modeled.

    We simply cannot trust untested climate models which were never shown to actually correctly predict global climate, which don’t include the key mechanism responsible for damping the warming during the last decade and which were produced by climate scientists who have financial incentive to keep the global warming propaganda up and running.

    Also extrapolating the warming trend from the last 30 years we end up with year 2100 less then 1.5deg C warmer then now which is far from catastrophic. The wild predictions offered by climate models which go as far up as 6degrees(!) have zero basis in actual temperature record.

    I have an exercise to all climate alarmists, take the actual temperature record found here:
    and use photoshop or something similar to roughly extrapolate the last 30 years climate trend to 2100 and see where it ends up (keep in mind that the graph shows temperature anomaly not an average global temperature and we are currently at +0.5C), next try to realize the 6deg C prediction for 2100 and see for yourself how ridiculous it is especially considering the almost flat last decade.

    Relying on models whose predictions have never been shown to match reality is certainly not science.

  34. Erasmussimo

    Arrow, your post has a number of misconceptions. The first is its failure to recognize the fact that climate is a long-term phenomenon. This is a statistical concept, so I can understand why you don’t get it, but there’s a simple line of reasoning that should make the concept clear to you. I have used this line of reasoning many times, but no matter how many times I explain it… oh, well.

    Here is the line of reasoning: the temperature at 11:03:24 was no different from the temperature at 11:03:23 — egads, global warming has stopped, right? Wrong. One second is too short a period to see any climatic effects from AGW. OK, so how about the fact that Tuesday was actually cooler than Monday — doesn’t that prove global cooling? Of course not — one day is too short a period to see any climatic effects from AGW. OK, so suppose it turns out that 2009 was cooler than 2008. Does that prove that the globe is cooling? No — one year is too short a period to see any climatic effects from AGW. So, how long a period *is* the minimum amount of time to see climatic effects from AGW? I can walk you through the calculation — it’s simple physics — but the answer is 30 years for the MINIMUM amount of time to see climatic effects from AGW. So when you talk about temperature changes over the last decade, you’re talking meaningless nonsense. It’s like talking about how rich Americans are by asking a dozen people how much money they have. It’s like figuring the altitude of a mountain by measuring the heights of two nearby rocks.

    The climate models HAVE been shown to accurately predict climate. You’re complaining because they don’t predict weather. Climate is not weather. If your investment advisor tells you that your portfolio should grow by about 5% per year, and one of your stocks drops by 8% one day, that doesn’t mean that you can’t trust your advisor. It means that you don’t understand the nature of long-term investment.

    “…which were produced by climate scientists who have financial incentive to keep the global warming propaganda up and running.”

    I challenge you to name the financial incentive you claim exists. There is none.

    As for your extrapolation, why are you assuming a linear extrapolation? You complain about climate models but then you yourself apply the most simple-minded of climate models: to wit, that temperatures over the next 70 years will increase at the same average rate as they have for the last 30 years. Would you care to explain the underlying physics behind your climate model?

  35. Arrow

    Erasmussimo first you set up a perfect example of a straw man argument, next you pretend you don’t get that the more public is concerned about climate the more funding for climate research and finally you don’t understand that linear regression is the only reliable way to asses data when one doesn’t have an experimentally proven model – everything is linear to first order.

    I certainly don’t expect to convince you, the resident global warming zealot of this blog, so I won’t waste any more time on your dishonest arguments.

  36. Erasmussimo

    “I certainly don’t expect to convince you, ”

    Certainly not with the reasoning you’ve been using. Some evidence might help, too.

  37. Paul Pierett

    Yes, we see a global warming trend. But where is the trend going now. Why is it changing? What changes the earth’s heat to cold? Why is not hot enough to have an earth covered in greenhouse affect that supported dinosaurs? Why did that change 134 million years ago?

    By the way, Dr. Joseph D’Aleo and a host of other more open minded scientists like my work, though I admit it is rough. But I’m not up for a Ph.D. I do this for a hobby.

    Actually, I believe the Tennessee Valley had a tremendous amount of glacier activity during the peak of the last Ice Age. I believe the last battle of Chickamauga Battle Field was fought atop a portion of a glacier moraine. That would put a glacier about an hour’s drive north of Atlanta. That would mean most of Georgia was Permafrost during the last Ice Age. That is my next project, yes or no, was the Tennessee River Valley covered in a glacier?

    The reason for my work is finding the basic fundamentals that cool and warm our earth and at what point could the earth have a hurricane. See year 1914 in my work and compare that to sunspot activity.

    As said in my paper, the greenhouse gases are doing their job. We peaked about year 2000 in temperatures, but we still had a very warm earth. That gave us all the terrible hurricanes through 2006. Last year, we dropped to 16 storms.

    Last year we were back to 1996 in average winter temperatures. This year’s first cold spell hit on the same week at 1969. It isn’t a smooth transition one can see each day of the week. It will flow back and forth like water sloshing in a bucket. Then, like in South Africa, there will be little bits in the paper about frozen homeless people. People will say, “What a shame.” Then one day, the President can’t get out of D.C. for an important meeting. Then, someone will notice the Chesapeake Bay frozen over.

    We are in the transition period. In about two years the hour glass of time that represents the next 9 sunspot cycles will flip over.

    There are two papers that one should read at the

    One is the correlation of sunspot activity to accumulated cyclone energy. Hurricane activity is falling in right behind the lack of sunspot activity. How many storms did we have this year? How many sunspots in the last two years?

    The other paper, past page 6, towards the back is all my 33 charts. I

    It is there. Just download your copy, keep it on file, pull out once a year and check the news. It’s not like ordering a hamburger and fries. The precious greenhouse gases are already breaking down. Such as in North Carolina, peak Ozone dropped from 66 occurrences three years ago to 33 last year and finally 3 cases this year. We could see CO2 plateau as it did in the seventies. But then, if I am correct, we will see more wood burning fires in homes, more people buying coal for the fireplaces. We may actually see an increase in CO2. If our temperatures drop as I predict, there won’t be enough means to keep warm less the average person who could care less about a carbon footprint, burns everything in sight to stay war.

    Hurricane prediction for next year: 2 to 4 storms, mostly tropical depressions, a 50/50 mix of tropical storms and hurricanes. No major hurricanes.

    See you again, 3 November 2010.

    Paul Pierett

  38. Truth

    Everybody check out these links..,9171,944914,00.html

    An ice age is coming.. “Global warming is a hoax. It is easier for the public to deal
    with and will give the ruling elite more time before panic and anarchy replace government. The reality is that overall global temperatures are becoming lower. Storms are becoming more violent and less predictable. The icecaps at the poles are growing larger. The temperate zones where food can be grown are shrinking. Desertification is increasing in the tropics. An ice age is on its way, and it will occur suddenly.” – ‘Behold a Pale Horse’ P.72-73. by William Cooper.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

About Chris Mooney

Chris is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science--dubbed "a landmark in contemporary political reporting" by and a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists" by Scientific American--Storm World, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs. For a longer bio and contact information, see here.


See More

Collapse bottom bar