History Shows Global Cooling Is Coming, Not Warming – Video

When looking at atmospheric CO2 concentration in ice core samples, each climax matched the increase in temperature.

The same thing happened when CO2 concetrations decreased; temperatures decreased as well.

What this shows is a massive cooling trend in the near future.

In the past 400,000 years, each time the ppmv of concentration reached between 279 and 300, it was followed by massive cooling, sometimes by as much as 12 degrees C globally.

Note: These charts look startling similar to the “Pacemaker of the ice Ages” chart in the last chapter of Not by Fire but by Ice.

Pacemaker of the Ice Ages

Please also not that those previous periods of warming were not caused by human activity.

It’s a cycle, it’s a cycle, it’s a cycle, and it’s not our fault.

We didn’t cause it, and we can’t change it.


Thanks to Stephen Bird and Craig Adkins for this link

25 thoughts on “History Shows Global Cooling Is Coming, Not Warming – Video”

  1. I agree with him but I also disagree. The only problem is by us adding co2 that wasn’t in the atmosphere before we are making that up and down trend go higher and higher. He also says that there is almost an exact correlation yet he doesn’t state that there are about 800 year lags between co2 and changes in temperature therefore he is giving people the wrong idea. Co2 concentration in the atmosphere is currently about 400 ppm. It was 280ppm during the late 1800s when we first started admitting co2 artificially. 280 ppm converted to a percentage is only about 0.0280 % of all atmospheric GHC thus far. If we were to double co2 alone from what it is now and cause total atmospheric co2 concentration to increase by another 400ppm if co2 were to be the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere we would be at 800 ppm by 2100 which still only accounts for 0.08 % of all GHG at the given time. This would cause a warming of about 1C according to transet climate sensitivity procedures. However if we were to include all the other greenhouse gases negative feedbacks and the process of vertical overturning of the earths atmosphere we would actually get a cooling affect which would result in a negative response. If we add the positive feedbacks to al GHG contributors including co2 we would get a limited warming reduced to 0.3C (.554 F) considering that humans are only responsible for 30% of the increase in atmospheric concentrations we would get a result of a warming at the most 0.1 F over the next 100 years which does absolutely nothing. Another theory also applies with hight that if you were to decrease in height you would get a lower temperature gradient therefore resulting In a lower climate sensitivity which the models also refuse to show.

    1. This is the problem in using one (1) form of scientific measurement. There are also studies that have been published and vetted by the scientific community (within the last year) that demonstrate clearly the C02 FOLLOWS the rise in temperature. Therefore it does not precede the rise. Other solar studies and graphs we’ve all seen in this site and others also demonstrate sun spot declines during these same periods. Well, we all know that is taking place right now. Additional studies show support of magnetic fields changing and right now they are.

      Many other studies from various scientific fields support the conclusion if not the specifics. No matter how accurate or inaccurate the young mans presentation when added to other scientific data the primary point he’s making is that we are about to drop into a very clod period. See Dark Winter By John Casey for a quick read. It validates the point of many sources as does “Not By Fire but by Ice”.

      Can we agree that along with a series of reports from other sciences supporting the same conclusion, that his representations honestly support the conclusions of other scientific studies and conclusions and therefore are probably correct to the same degree of the other studies?

    2. Circa 1900 CO2 was 0.03% of the atmosphere, the air, that’ s 1 part in 3,300.

      Since 1900 CO2 has risen by 1/3 – that’s 0.01%, 1 part per 10,000 – to 0.04%, 1 part per 2,500.

      The CO2 content of the air is so trivial that it is not even plausible that it has any identifiable effect on the climate. It is far more plausible that global warming causes a modest rise in CO2, global cooling causes a modest decline in CO2. The world en masse has committed the sophomoric fallacy of confusing correlation with causation.

      Bottom line, the CO2 content of the air is very nearly ZERO.


  2. Yes we’re at extremes, but each single minor hash mark on the time scale represents TEN THOUSAND years.

    So this speaks more to the longer term risk mankind faces for an end to the current inter-glacial at some point in the next several thousand years, than any shorter term prospects for a mini ice age.

    My take is that at the rate things are going, mankind will be lucky to see the advent of that next major glacial period.

    1. If we do see major glaciation may be it will shock the powers that be into seeing that they are not God almighty and there are serious issues to be dealt with other than world domination and the enslavement and culling of humanity. The next big ice age could be a good thing from a certain point of view.

  3. you do know this isnt cheering us up?
    we have utter fools in power planning for heat n rising seas
    while extreme cold low rain and shrinking oceans are far more probable..
    we can do a little toward ensuring personal planning for such..but
    how much better for all IF? we had some less gullible people running the show in each nation.

  4. same charts fat albert used but…he used them in reverse to imply…
    that co2 caused the heating..

  5. -Cold wave in Australia: snow near Adelaide!
    -Caribbean Hurricanes are Missing : something is wrong in the Global Warming theory! Northern Hemisphere is free from Hurricanes for the first time since 1977!
    This site is interesting.

  6. Hasn’t ice core data shown that CO2 levels go up and down after the temperature has done so, not at the same time? So ice ages always start with high levels of CO2, but the graph should show a lag?

    1. Correct!
      But notice another thing in the chart, each of the previous Interglacial has a significant peak of global, solar induced warming.
      This Interglacial is only just above the ice age tipping point temperature, and on the chart looks like a saw tooth. The reason I believe, has been the three Younger Dryas temporary re-glaciation periods at the beginning of the current Interglacial, this has regenerated the Northern Ice Cap at least three times over coming the Interglacial heat and altering the expected Interglacial outcome of an Ice free Northern Hemisphere.
      The decent into the next Glacial period will be much steeper and possibly much deeper than previous ends to the Interglacial periods over the last 500,000 years.

  7. The delusion of global warming has served its purpose, as have others. Keynesian theories on the economy was proven useless by FDR, but they put them to use these past eight years anyway. The conservative movement was emasculated by Dems & Republicans alike. Evil, ugly Liberalism has prevailed. Justice John Roberts folded on Arizona decision and Obamacare, and although Comey listed several indictable offenses, he still turned Hillary loose. “Extreme carelessness” IS the definition of “gross negligence”, a crime. There are many other signs that a great evil is afoot in this county, and the root of all this is: fat, lazy, complacent, apathetic Americans, who are led like sheep, and remain completely ignorant. It will take much more than just voting to straighten this mess out—if it can be done! Fiddlin Ferch

  8. It is interesting to note how close to the minimum needed for plant life the carbon dioxide level gets during the low parts of the cycle.

    1. Tundra and peat bogs dont need a lot of CO2 to survive, but they remain great carbon sinks over longer periods of time.

  9. IF I was to accept what he is saying, I would have to conclude that carbon dioxide CA– USED the massive drops in temperature, because basically, that is what he is implying. His statement that when CO2 reached between 279 and 300, we had a massive drop, well, it IS over that now, and horrors, we had far greater concentrations than that before. This is again reading the charts as if one causes the other, just as Gore did. Difference is, he is saying the CO2 causes the cooling trend. The charts only show that as temperature rose, the level of atmospheric CO2 rose, and as the temperature fell, so didn’t the CO2 concentration. They are related, yes, but if anything, it is the change in temperature that is “causing” the change in CO2, not the other way around. And that IS what I would expect, really since warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. So not only is man-made CO2 not a factor in the temperature rise, it has no more affect on Earth temperature than igneous rock, if that much. If we are looking for causes for the temperature fluctuations, this in NOT where we look. If we are doing another “smoking is a dirt, nasty habit, so we will blame everything on it” because “greenies” don’t like the smell of exhaust, we are positioning the world population for a great die off when the natural cycles strike again by killing carbon based fuels – there is no “fossil fuels.”

    1. The IPCC really overestimates climate change by adding the affect of a doubling of all greenhouse gases including water vapor to get a higher climate sensitivity. They use that about 1C on the lower end of the spectrum and continue to double water vapor to get a much higher catostrophic response. If we were to keep doubling GHG emissions the absorption rate will increase actually causing the temperature gradient to weaken in the long run. In our times a doubling of co2 alone is only about 1C is I stated above but with all the other greenhouse and air circulations the climate sensitivity gets limited to only 0.3 C. And we only make up 30% of that increase in a doubling of co2 so the affect we have will be so minuscule it’s not worth worrying about it in the long run

    2. If you totally removed solar activity from the equation, which the climate change advocates have done, that would be the logical conclusion. Getting the right answer to a math problem requires that you do all the math, not just the parts that get the answer you want.

    3. You are right. the oceans are the great moderator of the earth’s climate. They make life viable. As the climate naturally warms due to solar cycles and orbital variations the oceans warm releasing more CO2 which would naturally peak at the end of a warm cycle and beginning of cooling. The time lag is caused by the time it takes for ocean temperatures to begin to change.

  10. And now that the temperatures are beginning to sink, the AGW crowd grows ever desperate to install those carbon limits before the CO2 starts to drop naturally in response.

    If they begin to drop and no one has stopped driving their cars and using coal electricity yet, it’ll become evident to everyone that CO2 follows temperature. 🙂

  11. It heats up the oceans hold less CO2, it cools down the oceans hold more CO2. The graph above shows that CO2 levels fluctuate with temperature, CO2 has a minimal heating effect which allows those who manipulate people driven by herding instincts to be driven. Thinking optimists think we are heading for a devastating Little Ice Age, thinking pessimists think we are heading for a full blown Ice Age. Myself, no matter how hard I try to think can’t decide between the two.

  12. I beg to differ. It says right here that it’s warming and will continue to do so til 2099, killing off half of these cute penguins:


    Aw, penguins are so cute! We should go ahead and elect a megalomaniac for president, because penguins are so cute! Who cares if he/she kills off half of the human race by 2099.

    I found this article on (In)accuweather, who changed their rain forecast for today several times during the day TODAY. But I believe that they can know what the climate will be like between now and 2099, because I’m a dumbed-down American and I believe everything I see on the boob-tube (and all of its descendents.)

    Did somebody say there was Kool-aid?

  13. Also important to note that CO2 levels in the distant past were 5-10 times higher than the present day but Ice Ages occurred nevertheless. I always ask warmists ” If CO2 levels were 5-10 times higher than today yet runaway global warming DID NOT occur, what is different this time, and doesn’t that imply that something other than CO2 is/are the main temperature driver(s)?” When confronted with this, they start sputtering and mumbling about “scientific consensus,” 97%, etc.

  14. You are all following the blue co2 model, and forgetting the green portion. As in ground cover not environmentalism. High co2 lots of green plants. Creating ground. Low co2, ice, not nice.
    The higher and lower readings, are manifestations of some other process, modeling help to show what happens, but math can lie due to interpretation of numbers. Just as entrails spread on a table. Overall good arguments, but still, blaming, not investigating results.

Comments are closed.