Find us on Google+

Global Warming Movement Turns Cool

| 3:44 pm June 22, 2008 | Comments (138)

Let me warn you, this is a little longer than my usual posts here, but it was prompted by a big op-ed article in the Birmingham News this morning. Take the time to read it, if you dare. Seems like our local paper has settled on one side of the climate change debate, which is certainly their right. But, I have the right to publish this article as well….

Two years ago, it seemed like nothing could stop the global warming train. Most of the media, those in Hollywood, politicians (many on both sides of the cultural divide), and “enlightened environmentalists” were all telling us that man was causing runaway warming of the earth’s atmosphere, meaning global catastrophe only decades ahead for all of us.

Scary stuff.

The problem is that a majority of those in this almost religious movement have little training in atmospheric science, and little understanding of the issue. They jumped on the bandwagon because it matches their worldview, or pads their pocket. This issue has generated great wealth on both sides of the argument, and I need to say up front I have absolutely no financial interest in climate. I am paid the same regardless of whether man is involved in climate change or not, and I have never taken a dime for a speech on the subject.

The simple truth is that the anthropogenic global warming train has slowed to a crawl, and the riders are jumping off as the facts are discovered.

What is the truth? Lets begin with something we all can agree on. The climate IS changing. It has always changed, it is changing now, and it will always change.

Beyond that, here are some simple facts that make those left on the global warming train very uncomfortable:

*The earth is no warmer now than it was in 1998.
*Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a gas indispensable to plant life. Plants, in turn, release oxygen, which sustains animal and human life.
*The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, not carbon dioxide.
*The lack of solar activity in recent months suggests global cooling might be our biggest potential climate change problem in coming years.
*The planet has had weather disasters, extremes, and anomalies since it has been here. We just didn’t have 24 hour news channels and the Internet in prior decades to spread the news.

I have been doing the weather on local television for 30 years, and EVERY YEAR I have had people come up to me and tell me that they can “never remember the weather being this strange”.

Most of those that you see and hear speaking on the subject have little scientific knowledge. Here is a quote from Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, from an article he penned recently:

“Alarmists like Al Gore will use pseudo-scientific justifications and comparisons in their attempt to make a connection between carbon dioxide and global warming. Even though CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, the alarmists insist on calling it a pollutant, referring to our atmosphere as an “open sewer.” For instance, Gore likes to point out that Venus has far more CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth does, and its surface is hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, more CO2 causes warming. But we also know that the Martian atmosphere has 15 times as much CO2 as our own atmosphere, and its surface temperature averages about 70 deg. F below zero. So you see, in science a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

Dr. James McClintock (marine biologist at UAB) today, in an op-ed piece published by the Birmingham News, claims that Antarctica is “warming quickly”. Dr. McClintock, I am sure, is an excellent marine biologist, and I would not even make an effort to challenge his knowledge of that science. But, what is his background in atmospheric science? And, where does that claim come from?

Here is what Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) Joe D’Aleo says about this:

“The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic ice cover, like an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof,” D’Aleo wrote on March 25. “We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear,” D’Aleo added.

And, from climate scientist Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona: “It is interesting that all of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) stories concerning Antarctica are always about what’s happening around the [western] peninsula, which seems to be the only place on Antarctica that has shown warming. How about the net ‘no change’ or ‘cooling’ over the rest of the continent, which is probably about 95% of the land mass, not to mention the record sea ice coverage recently.”

I also should note that the mythical UN IPCC “consensus” continues to crumble… Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the University of Tokyo, and a top UN IPCC Scientist, calls global warming fears: the “worst scientific scandal in history” in the weblog of former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke.

Here is what Canadian climatologist Tim Ball says about the IPCC: “The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively. Of the 600 in WGI, 308 were independent reviewers, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 (less than one percent of the scientific population) is listed as ‘proof’ of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.”

I find it interesting that most of the predictions coming from the IPCC are based on computer model output. Those of us in the trench, who deal with the Earth’s atmosphere every day, know that computer model data is often horrible 24 hours in advance… how bad can it be out to 50 or 100 years?

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine this month announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists (9,021 with PhDs) signed a petition stating that “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…”

John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel, calls the GW movement the greatest scam in history.

I encourage all of you to read material on BOTH sides of the issue and make up your own mind. Mr Gore, the science is “not settled”, and the invitation for a debate remains wide open.

Heaven help us this fall when ABC television tells us that the world, as we know it, is about to end because of “global warming”. Never let facts get in the way of a good story, especially one that scares you to death.

I consider myself an environmentalist. There are some serious environmental issues out there. “Global warming” is not one of them. One of the best ways to become a truly environmentally concerned person is to walk the banks of an Alabama river or stream for a half day and pick up trash and garbage. Anyone want to join me?


Category: Pre-November 2010 Posts

James Spann

About James Spann: James Spann is one of the most recognized and trusted television meteorologists in the industry. He holds the AMS CCM designation and television seals from the AMS and NWA. He is a past winner of the Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year from both professional organizations. View author profile.

Comments (138)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. passerby says:

    Those who support IPCC theory don’t know about what John Christy claims? His research result contradicts with their “CO2/GHG” theory.

  2. Janine Nose says:

    Re #101, ‘IPCC theory’ does not exist: it is a scientist’s panel or forum containing contributors of all persuasions. This is one reason why IPCC does not do definite conclusions on global warming but uses phrases like ‘very likely’. The other reason has to do with plain scientific carefulness.

    Some statements by Christy:
    “It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way.”(2004)

    Christy is “…still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.”(2006).
    Very correct criticism the IPCC would absolutely endorse. IPCC do not do apocalyptic forecasts but some of their readers would.

    Dr Christy has been a busy contributor to IPCC publications, including the 2007 report. His work on satellite observation of air temperature is of great value, especially because there are still many questions as to which layer of the atmospere is most affected by global warming.

    I have one particular problem with some of Christy’s argumentation. E.g.:

    “While “global warming” due to extra greenhouse gases seems to be consistent with Arctic melting it is at odds with Antarctic sea ice expansion. A more reasonable explanation for at least part of the Arctic ice reduction is offered by a NASA team (Nghiem, et al. 2007) suggesting that an anomalous circulation pattern of the atmosphere over the Arctic in 2007 pushed a large part of the sea ice to lower latitudes where it melted.”[]

    While Christy correctly concludes “However, more research, and more bservations are necessary to understand why such events occur. The complexity of this climate system can not be overstated” he copies the special atmosperic circulation theory about the melt of Arctic ice last year a) without checking whether the great melt of 2005 might be attributable to similar causes and b) what it actually means that virtually all the old (>8 yrs) Arctic Ice has dissapeared.

    In fact, the melt of 2005 might have been an even greater phenomenon than last year’s, because the big sweep of multiseasonal thick ice happened

    The record extent of circum-Antarctic sea ice could be attributed to global warming as follows: more precipitation -> more snow cover on sea ice around Antarctica, resulting in (much) lower melting rates… There is research by NASA scientists suggesting this – I mean snowcover inhibiting melting – might be indeed be the case.

  3. […] As the G-8 leaders talk up their half-hearted promises to slash greenhouse gas emissions (just wait and see how little they actually will accomplish), we take the opportunity to bring you today’s Global Warming Quotes of the Day: “The simple truth is that the anthropogenic global warming train has slowed to a crawl, and the riders are jumping off as the facts are discovered . . . here are some simple facts that make those left on the global warming train very uncomfortable: *The earth is no warmer now than it was in 1998. *Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a gas indispensable to plant life. Plants, in turn, release oxygen, which sustains animal and human life. *The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, not carbon dioxide. *The lack of solar activity in recent months suggests global cooling might be our biggest potential climate change problem in coming years. *The planet has had weather disasters, extremes, and anomalies since it has been here. We just didn’t have 24 hour news channels and the Internet in prior decades to spread the news.” – meteorologist James Spann. […]

  4. Thomas says:

    You have to laugh at the ‘solution’ if global warming was a true threat – ‘taxation’ lol. We shall tax you and you see because we taxed you the earth will snap it’s invisible fingers and presto fixed!

    Seriously does ANYONE buy this nonsense? Anyone? – Every year something is out to get us apparently – killer bees, global cooling/warming, sars, bird flu, blah blah blah.

    And everytime the solution is more bureaucracy and more taxation… Bah

    Don’t be led by the nose – think, for ‘yourself’ not as in take this or that ‘experts’ side – that’s not thinking at all.

  5. Marcus Borg says:

    It is the greatest scam ever pulled off, let´s stop. Go to your neighbours and educate them or we might get taxed to death.

    Investigate Clube of Rome and more.

    Alan Watt talked about this on his radio show. (

  6. cardboard ninja says:

    I think the sun is far too polluted causing the warming….I vote we send ally gore and his buddies up to the sun and clean it up…asap…..he he….(sunglasses optional)

  7. passerby says:

    Janine, which side are you on?

  8. […] past year – June 17, 2008 – (By Award winning Chief Meteorologist James Spann of Alabama ABC TV) (LINK) & (LINK) NASA Aerospace Engineer Rejects Man-Made Climate fears (By Dirck T. Hartmann, who […]

  9. […] past year – June 17, 2008 – (By Award winning Chief Meteorologist James Spann of Alabama ABC TV) (LINK) & (LINK) NASA Aerospace Engineer Rejects Man-Made Climate fears (By Dirck T. Hartmann, who […]

  10. Sue says:

    Global warming is all about politics and money.

  11. Janine Nose says:

    @passerby re #107: I have the hardest answer for you to understand: I am on no side. This does not mean you can fill me in for any side – although you probably will. It also does not mean you can fill me in against any side – although you probably will. Such is most of the human mind (which, I find, functions pathologically in that it cannot understand the neutral, the real or the word ‘not’: do NOT think of pink elephants!).

    I just do not believe the angels are melting glaciers and arctic ice. Being a physicist and climatologist, I cannot find any other reasons for present global warming than changed chemical composition of the atmosphere.

    Unfortunately ecospinners have cried Wolf! far to many times. But a realist is not sensitive to cries, just to facts.

  12. Bill Taylor says:

    so you have examined and ruled out recovery from the little ice age? you have looked at every known natural process and have proof they arent at play? and you know ALL the processes involved?

    this change in our atmosphere what %age is that change please?

    please explain a process where an insulator can ADD more heat to any system?

    insulators slow heat movement but do NOT in any way cause a permanent build up of heat, remove the source of heat and the insulator cools very quickly.

  13. Janine Nose says:

    “please explain a process where an insulator can ADD more heat to any system?”

    Insulators don’t and that is not the issue. The issue is that insulators TRAP heat, until a new balance with environment is reached. Bill, have you ever tried blankets to sleep under?

    Another question, Bill – do you need to know all processes in a pan of water – e.g. turbulent movement – to predict a temperature change when it is put on a fire?
    Given answer to this question – no – then of course we can look at ‘known natural processes’ re climate change. Correct: none of them are at play today. Milankovitch cycles don’t put us in a new Ice Age for at least another 5.000 years (10.000 is more probable). Continental shifting won’t do nothing to climate on a time scale of just a century. Solar activity has been virtually constant over the past three centuries (while the Maunder Minimum correlates to a slight global temperature dip about 1/3 of amplitude of recent warming). Volcanic activity is nothing special (no less, no more than average). Global temperature proves no considerable sensitivity to the ozone layer situation. What else do we have?

    The ‘little ice age’ is a myth. It was no global phenomenon. Global temperature change past 25 years is more than three times as big as the largest ‘little ice age’-anomalies in Europe.

  14. Bill Taylor says:

    indeed the blanket analogy works perfectly to make my point, does the blanket “trap” heat? does the bed stay warm once you have used a blanket? the next night when you get into bed it is already warm because the blanket trapped heat from last night?
    does the bed get hotter each night because the blanket is trapping heat?

    because that is the claim YOU are making, that more insulation will make the entire globe warmer on a permanent basis….that the extra insulation is trapping heat, and as shown above insulators do NOT trap heat.

    as to the pan of boiling water indeed IF there is an unknown factor at work that removes the heat as fast as it can be applied then the water will not boil, and that is our climate there are factors we dont know about and until we discover and understand EVERY factor at play, we CANT single out any one factor and say it has taken control, and again THAT is the claim YOU are making that co2 and human co2 in particular have taken control over every other factor at play(some unknown) and is causing any warming we may have.

    i even will state with certainty that there is NO way to arrive at a single number and call that the glonal temperature for any given day, at best you can get an average from observations but unless you observe every square inch of the planet you have huge gaps that are UNknown in your equation and the single numbers given today have such a wide margin of error that they are meaningless.

    as example on a day when it rains someplaces and doesnt in others the temps will be cooler where it rained so how does one arrive at a single temp reading for the state given that any given location can vary by as much as 30 degrees based on raining or not?

    yester day where it rained it was cooler than in culman county what was the average temp for where it rained and cullman county and what would that numbner be good for in either location? meaning that average could well be a number that wasnt found anywhere in the area.

    point = it is like taking an average of phone numbers in the book sure it can be done but what does it tell you that has any meaning?

  15. Andrew says:

    I agree with James Spann; what’s missing is humility. We get so wrapped up in our own little world and think that what we believe is right that we miss the big picture…God is in control. He said he’s coming back and I’m going to believe him. He cares for us…and he will take care of us, whether global warming is right or not.

    God is in control….Let it stay that way.

  16. Janine Nose says:

    “that more insulation will make the entire globe warmer on a permanent basis”

    Thas is entirely correct. Increase insulation -> more heat gets trapped -> globe warmer. Exactly the (somewhat metaphorical) case with INCREASING concentrations of CO2.

    As for all the ‘unknowns’, will you wait until average global temperature is at +30° C? At 100° C? before arriving at more sensible theories than those ‘theories of the unknown factors’? Because that is what your argument amounts to. Or are you disputing the fact of global warming itself? In that case: who’s melting all that ice…

  17. Bill Taylor says:

    basic science, human caused global arming is NOT i repeat is NOT a”theory” it is a rather silly hypothesis…in science a theory is something that has been confirmed by experiement/observation.

    hcgw has NOT been supported by the actual observations and in fact has been falsified by them.

    NOT knowing the difference between a hypothesis and a theory speaks to the basic understanding of science.
    who’s melting the ice, well mother nature is the answer along with the reality that the ice is growing in many places around the globe and common sense says during periods between ice ages the ice melts and we have been in such a period for around 18,000 years, an informed person would expect to find ice melting in summer during these climatic periods.

  18. Janine Nose says:

    “hcgw has NOT been supported by the actual observations and in fact has been falsified by them.”

    You must know something the scientific community does not. Will you come with some facts or will you have to withhold them?

    Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
    since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
    observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
    It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic
    warming over the past 50 years averaged over
    each continent (except Antarctica).
    During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic
    forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns
    of warming and their changes are simulated only by
    models that include anthropogenic forcings. Difficulties remain
    in simulating and attributing observed temperature
    changes at smaller than continental scales.
    IPCC, Nov 2007.

    So maybe end of this year IPCC will come with a total refutation of all research done hitherto? I, for one, would love two weeks of skating on the canals, like we could almost every year until 1988, after which year we have had just two, maybe three winters worthy of the name…

  19. Bill Taylor says:

    the ipcc summary is NOT i repeat NOT science, science doesnt include things like, we think gravity is MOST LIKELY a real natural effect.

    and it doesnt say according to our computer models the only thing to cause things to stay on the earth is humans having sticky feet.

    computer models are NOT SCIENCE.

    and as we ALL know watching weather, computer models CANT say with any certainty what tommorrows high will be for some small area of the earth, much less include every factor involved in the global climate.

    note the word FORCINGS, what that means is we can FORCE the computer to blame humans by assigning too much power to co2….or there has been warming and IF we claim and input that co2 is super powerful more powerful than any other factor then our model will say human co2 is to blame.

    and the actual observations have shown that co2 is NOT in control simply because as co2 rises the temperatures have gone both up and done during the entire rise…IF co2 was trapping heat on a permanent basis then each DAY there would be more heat than the day before and each day even MORE heat would be retained, it would be so obvious because IF co2 was trapping heat as claimed the earth would have been a cinder long ago and those last few people would have known why….it aint happening!

  20. Janine Nose says:

    Bill, you have a peculiar view on what is science and what it is not. But it is beside the subject.

    You make some interesting mistakes.

    First, you mix weather and climate forecasting. But these are totally different matters. Whereas prediction of next week’s highs is hard, it is not hard to predict that a century from now the equator will be warmer than the arctic and that winter will be colder than summer.

    Second, you suddenly think that CO2 would be the ONLY driver for climate, which leads you to think global warming should be a smooth process. You suddenly omit other factors like El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), sun and volcanic activity et cetera. Well: know then that the reason this year will not become record warm is called La Niña. Find out about it.

    Third, you have forgotten about radiation balance re insulators. You seem to think that I believe that insulators would keep trapping more and more heat. Please correct this view.

  21. Bill Taylor says:

    i would rather just bow out of this discussion at this time, i havent made any personal comments but you cant help but try to insult me.

    YOU are making the claim that co2 has taken control and is the CAUSE of recent warming not me, and i have repeatedly pointed out there are many other factors at play some of them even unknown at this time, YET you falsely claim i am NOT considering other factors.

    and indeed YOU are claiming that adding more co2 causes more heating and that is what you again falsely claimed i am thinking, the opposite is true i am pointing out insulators dont trap heat and now it seems you must agree they DONT!

    so you agree insulators do NOT trap more and more heat, BUT you dont seem to grasp that would falsify the hcgw hypothesis, because that IS the entire base of the claim about co2, that humans releasing co2 is causing more and more heat to be trapped.

    i have presented the real science in laymans terms.

  22. Janine Nose says:

    Bill, if you add more insulation more heat will be trapped (try this by adding a blanket over your bed every hour tonight, so in the morning you wake up with nine blankets or so). If you add more CO2 we may expect a higher air temperature.

    The concentration of CO2 is rising at close to 2 ppm/year (it is now over 380 ppm) and the rise has been shown to slowly accelerate.

    That is the current situation and climate apparently lives up to expectation by getting warmer.

  23. WestHighlander says:

    HH Bounty

    Before you start to lecture about molecular absorption of H2O versus CO2 — you need to be a bit more educated in such matters yourself

    Actually, H2O is far more prevalent than CO2 (a “trace gas”) and further H2O is quite as good on a per molecule basis (the details depends somewhat on what part of what emissions and where in the atmosphere as pressure and temperature effects the absorption)

    No credible scientist claims CO2 is the dominant absorber of thermal IR in the temperature range of interest (e.g. 250 to 310 K) – rather, the claim is that H2O amplifies the effects of the CO2 and CH4 (incidentally, methane is significantly better than CO2 on a per molecule basis though somewhat less prevalent)

    So why is CO2 the “target” for the Global Warming Hysteria Campaign?

    !) it is always a gas at temperatures and pressures found on the earth and in its atmosphere
    2) it is reasonably credibly claimed to be directly associated with fossil fuel use — this is even questionable
    3) it has been directly and continuously measured for the past 50 years

    So its basically the ol’ if I’m a hammer everything looks like a nail effect

    The much more important species of H2O vapor is far to hard to work with
    1) its too variable in time and space to be easily predicted by the Global Circulation Models
    2) while CO2 is fairly hard to demonize (it being involved in our second by second breathing) – water is so well known even those unaware of CO2 – telling people not to water their lawns to reduce global warming is a hard sell
    3) water has the nasty habit of changing state from liquid to vapor and hence further complicating the process of tracking the average molecule
    4) and then there is the whole issue of what happens when the H2O condenses and forms CLOUDS — no one honestly knows even if the net contribution of clouds is a warm or a cool

    To claim otherwise is something worse than ignorance — it smacks of intellectual dishonesty

    If you want a real simple other factor to consider – look at the big glowing object called the SUN


  24. algored says:

    Where are the remnants of the industrial civilisation that must have caused the glaciers, that once covered most of North America, to recede? What happened to them? This civilisation had to have existed since we now know that only the actions of humans can cause the earth to warm. Since we know that the sun and the internal heat of the earth has no effect whatsoever there can be no other explanation.

    Can I get consensus? (The new and sole criteria for scientific proof)

  25. Janine Nose says:

    “we now know that only the actions of humans can cause the earth to warm.”

    What a laugh. What prompts a person to believe this given that historic causes of climate change happen not to be operative now?

  26. Janine Nose says:

    #123 “If you want a real simple other factor to consider – look at the big glowing object called the SUN”

    No climatologist or member of the IPCC in his right mind would ever consider the sun as a factor in climate change… Just kidding!

    Fact 1: the sun’s activity has remained virtually unchanged over the past couple of centuries (by the way, the existence of the ‘Maunder minimum’ is disputed today, while it is known that the ‘little ice age’ is a myth: globally there was no such epoch).

    Fact 2: the energy per square metre received on top of the atmosphere has remained unchanged since 1975 – but nitpickers will actually see a tiny decline!

    Therefore, the sun has no role in the sudden global warming we’re experiencing over the past couple of decades.

    So we have to look at the hateful CO2 again…

  27. Matt says:

    Wow . . . very nice, taking the unpopular stance and giving good reasons to back it up. I was taken aback by the essay by the founder of the Weather Channel. Interesting that the Weather Channel now takes the opposite view. I actually came to this from Dan Satterfield’s page on Climate Change and . . . wow . . . it’s a heated debate (pun intended). Until I’ve studied some meteorology and climatology in college I’m not going to take a stand on the issue . . . but I think extremism is probably the worst thing.

    I found it VERY amusing that you said people came to you every single year and said, “I never remember the weather being so strange.” My grandparents say that ALL THE TIME and use it as a pretext for “Armageddon is coming”. Anyway, I’m really glad you published this, because obviously a lot of science gets dealt under the table, through politics, and I think the opinions of these expert meteorologists need to be given a voice equal to the stuff you’ll hear in the mass media.

  28. WestHighlanddr says:

    Janine Nose — HuH?

    “Fact 2: the energy per square metre received on top of the atmosphere has remained unchanged since 1975 – but nitpickers will actually see a tiny decline!

    GOOGLE something called ACRIM — (Active Cavity Radiometer) that has actually been measuring the radiative output of the sun from an overlapping series of satellites

    Not only can you see the sunspot cycle in the ACRIM data — you can even see the effect of individual very large sunspots

    By the way — as the sun gets more active — with more dark spots — the brightness (the misnamed “solar constant”) increases!

    Unfortunately, for the Climate Catastrophists — we can now track the level of solar activity in radioactive isotopes of Carbon and Beryllium that are deposited in glacial ice and tree rings

    The Maunder Minimum is as real as is the well known approximately 11 year duration solar cycle that we are familiar with (by the way the recent Cycle 24 seems to be a bit slow in getting started). Not only do we have Maunder, Dalton and Sporer Mimima — but on an average over the recent few thousands of years the sun seems to be fairly regularly in such a minimum condition.

    OK correlation is not necessarily causality — but it is also very obvious in ice cores, stalagmite cores, coral cores, boreholes in rocks, etc that the planet has been warming and cooling fairly regularly over the recent past since the last peak in glaciation.

    Now since no sentient being believes that human activity caused any of the previous warmings or coolings and we see the same sort of variations in the soalr cycle — well you draw your own conclusion

    As for me — if Cycle 24 keeps failing to show any spots for another year of so — well I’m going to start buying stock in companies selling designer “Long Johns”


  29. […] 6, 2008) 2008 – Global Temperature Also Cooler in May (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, June 6, 2008) 2008 – Global Warming Movement Turns Cool (James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, June 22, 2008) 2008 – Australian Researchers Warn of […]

  30. coolit says:

    The IPCC will not release the raw data to back up their preordained conclusions designed to scare everyone into a one world fascist state. Neiter will Al Gore and all of the “scientist” suporting the self serving UN debate their self declared consensus. Bottom line– man induced global warming is a lie.

  31. JR says:

    One thing is certain… if the deniers of global warming are correct the alarmists are fools… if the alarmists are correct we’re all dead

  32. Hey – I found your site by mistake. I was looking in Google for info on home building, I must say your site is pretty cool I just love the theme, its amazing!. I don’t have the time this minute to fully read your site but I have bookmarked it and also signed up for your RSS feed. I’ll back in a day or two. thanks for a awesome site.

  33. hey,I find that your weblog is quite instructive and helpful and we were curious if there is really a possibility of getting More stories like this on your blog. If you willing to support us out, we will be willing to compensate you… Best regards, Margurite Couret

  34. I admire whatever you did in this article. I enjoy the part wherever you mention you are doing this to present back and yet I would guess due to all the remarks that this is working for you too.

  35. Naked says:

    The news have been shocking this week about the oil spill, what do you think about it?

  36. […] “Global Warming Movement Turns Cool” […]

  37. […] says about the “global warming theory,” check out his blog post from June 22, 2008 at […]

  38. […] (NOAA, June 6, 2008 2008 – Global Temperature Also Cooler in May (Watts Up With That?, June 6, 2008 2008 – Global Warming Movement Turns Cool (James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, June 22, 2008 2008 – Warming on 11 year hiatus? How […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.