60 Years of Climate Change

NASA has condensed all we need to know about climate change over the last 60 years into a 15 second video.I suppose they mean CAGW when they use climate change.  They described the warming as unprecedented and appear to have a new response to the pause in increasing temperature.  Gavin Schmidt is concerned that the temperature hasn’t decreased over this period.  First they didn’t predict the pause and now they have another concern?


About these ads

11 responses to “60 Years of Climate Change

  1. no one is listening to this false science, back in the 70’s was global cooling and now the coldest weather is upon us. i burn every day just so to cause an impact on global warming. lots of wood left.

  2. NASA established in 1958. This graphic proves NASA causes global warming.

  3. First, even if the world warmed over the last 60 years by itself proves nothing. We are still emerging from the Little Ice Age. The only way to emerge from an ice age is to warm. But more importantly, you cannot compare temperatures over the decades. Too many things have changed. The precision of the stations has changed, urban encroachment causes artificial warming, the stations that we are using have changed (remote stations that tend to be cooler have been shut down), and the government agencies that collect this data have admitted that they “adjust” the data to match their expectations of a warming world.

    Every realist acknowledges that the climate changes with time. Always has and always will. Recent discoveries show how the sun impacts climate more dramatically than previously though. Weather patterns like the Pacific Decadal Osciallator and the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillator result in decades long miniature warming and cooling trends. Other patterns like El Nino and La Nina cause other disruptions in weather patterns. Plus a million other factors which we know little or nothing about.

    To assume that one little thing like changes in carbon dioxide concentrations is the controlling factor is folly.

  4. We don’t even know what CO2 atmospheric concentrations really are around the world, year to year. It has been believed for some time that levels are more or less controlled through an exchange at the surface of the oceans, but the amount of exchange is not known and not measured. The world relies on the work of a single investigator (Keeling deceased, now Keeling son) at one unique land location on a CO2-spewing volcano, surrounded by increasingly active human development, generating increasing amounts of CO2 exhaust. Furthermore, the “curve” does not look much like a curve, more like a straight line. That “curve” is what allows environmental agitators to scare everybody else silly!

  5. Carbon Dioxide levels are increasing, so what? They should be increasing. As ocean temperature rises it releases carbon dioxide, as it cools it absorbs carbon dioxide. Carbon Dioxide levels are an indicator, though a lagging one, of temperature changes and have never been a prime driver. Run away feed backs eliminate carbon dioxide as a candidate for this. Since the climate has never been shown to enter these run away feed back loops the entire hypothesis is a bit silly.

  6. Back just after 9/11 I was working on a PEM fuel cell project for the DOD and since energy production was a part of that work I got into the subject of climate change. I was a skeptic back then put I hadn’t ruled the anthropocentric part out. Facts matter more than opinion and so i went on a multi year quest to find the truth since the subject seemed to be clouded with opinion with little substance.

    The bottom line was that by 2009 I had convinced myself that the IPCC was 100% wrong and I had developed my own model of the climate that actually works. Since then I have tried to get the concept publish but as you can expect i got no where. last week I set up a blog http://centinel2012.com/ and on it under Climate Change on the menu bar you will find a 4 part series of posts that explain my theory in detail.

    The fourth post (IV) gives a series of equations that will generate a global temperature plot that will be plus or minus 1% of the published NASA-GISS results as shown in their Table LOTI. Although it works monthly the variations are large and so I use the annual values in my charts. You will observe that my plot is very very close to the NASA yearly mean and has been right on since 1958 in these charts.

    Comments are welcome and debate is good.

  7. Funny how they failed to mention there was no real change over the last 1/3 of the sequence or there about.

  8. Why should Gavin worry about the lack of cooling?

    Real Climate – December 2007

    Daniel Klein asks at #57:

    “OK, simply to clarify what I’ve heard from you.
    (1) If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding
    (2) In general, any year’s global temperature that is “on trend” should be exceeded within 5 years (when size of trend exceeds “weather noise”)
    (3) Any ten-year period or more with no increasing trend in global average temperature is reason for worry about state of understandings
    I am curious as to whether there are other simple variables that can be looked at unambiguously in terms of their behaviour over coming years that might allow for such explicit quantitative tests of understanding?”


    [Response: 1) yes, 2) probably, I'd need to do some checking, 3) No. There is no iron rule of climate that says that any ten year period must have a positive trend. The expectation of any particular time period depends on the forcings that are going on. If there is a big volcanic event, then the expectation is that there will be a cooling, if GHGs are increasing, then we expect a warming etc. The point of any comparison is to compare the modelled expectation with reality - right now, the modelled expectation is for trends in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 deg/decade and so that's the target. In any other period it depends on what the forcings are. - gavin]


  9. Wonderful article! We will be linking to this particularly
    great article on our site. Keep up the good writing.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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